How to reduce the size of government: Department of Agriculture

In an ongoing series, the CATO Institute has gone through the Federal Government and taken stock of the different departments and what they do for the citizens.  They then produced case by case ways to reduce the size and cost of each department to prove that it is possible to reduce the size of government.

They offer such novel ideas as free market solutions, private industry and State rights.  These ideas are foreign to the average left leaning liberal out there because it would remove power from the Central Government.  What would we do if the Government was not there to take care of us?  Supply our whims with the comfort of Nanny protection.  We might actually create (return) to the great country that was fought for and formed back in the Time of our Fathers.

When will we come to understand that caring for people does not need to make them dependant.  Helping people does not mean that they should become slaves of the State, voting blocks of needy zombies waiting for their next fix from the dealer that is the Federal Government.

Please, go, seek and find simple solutions to what has become the biggest problem our country faces.



Department of Agriculture


from CATO:

"The Department of Agriculture provides an array of subsidy programs for farmers and imposes extensive regulations on agricultural markets. It operates food assistance programs, such as the food stamp and school lunch programs, and it administers many rural aid programs. The Forest Service also forms part of the Department of Agriculture.

The department will spend $142 billion in 2010, or about $1,200 for every U.S. household. It operates 237 different subsidy programs and employs 96,000 workers in about 7,000 offices across the nation. It oversees more than 10,700 pages of regulations."



Spending Cuts Summary


"All agricultural and rural subsidies in the Department of Agriculture’s budget should be abolished to save taxpayers more than $30 billion annually. In addition, agricultural trade barriers should be repealed. Current agricultural and rural policies are economically and environmentally damaging, and they create unfair transfers of wealth.

The department's food subsidy activities—food stamps, school lunches, and WIC—are properly local and private functions. They should be devolved to the states, with each state determining appropriate policies for its own residents. Such reforms would save federal taxpayers about $98 billion annually. Some states may decide to fund food subsidies on their own, but competition between the states would likely result in smaller, more innovative programs.

Forest Service subsidies to state governments and private businesses should be ended. Congress should also explore options to transfer the national forests to the states or to new independent trusts that would be self-funded from forest-related receipts.

The table shows that these reforms would eliminate more than 90 percent of the USDA’s budget, saving federal taxpayers $131 billion annually, or about $1,100 per U.S. household. Under the proposal, the USDA would retain responsibility for animal and plant health inspections, food safety, grain and packing inspections, and conservation activities.




Timeline of Government Growth


This timeline shows that once again, Reagan was ahead of his time.


•1985: Despite the Reagan administration’s proposals to cut farm subsidies, the poor shape of farm finances during the 1980s prompts Congress to pass the expensive Food Security Act of 1985. This law added new farm subsidy programs, including the Export Enhancement Program and the Conservation Reserve Program, which pays farmers not to farm.




Who is John Galt....