Gillibrand Helps New York's Dairy Farmers Get Price Increases

Thanks, Robert (4.00 / 2)

This really deserves highlighting. Gillibrand worked tirelessly to get some relief for the staggering dairy farmers, and today she really came through.  This will have a beneficial impact all across rural New York.  It's even better to see Senator Gillibrand still has plans to take on the structural problems with milk price supports so that this doesn't happen in the future.

---

by: Historical Pessimist @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 22:31:05 PM UTC

Gillibrand was a solid supporter of farmers (4.00 / 1)

of all kinds in NY-20, and now, as Senator, she's a similiarly solid supporter of farmers across the state.

And there is nothing at all wrong with that.

Of course, most New Yorkers are not farmers.

But all New Yorkers eat and drink farm products, and the more those products come from in-state, the better, all around.

---

by: devtob @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 01:52:28 AM UTC

The problem with "milk price supports" (4.00 / 1)

The fact is, rather than supporting dairy prices, the government is limiting those prices, and subsidizing farmers.  Stores cannot charge what the market will bear, on the mistaken belief that dairy products are essential for good nutrition.

(Side note:  Dairy products are not essential for good nutrition.  Eating fresh fruits and vegetables, along with sufficient protein, gives you all the nutrients you need.)

Meanwhile, because dairy farmers cannot compete in the marketplace, they rely on government handouts to make up the difference between what they could charge and what they are allowed to charge -- and that handout never does the job.

In addition, there is a hideous tariff scheme that doesn't reflect properly what other countries do to subsidize their products (BTW, that tariff scheme failure is not just in dairy, it extends across the entire agricultural spectrum).

Other subsidies are provided for other products, based mostly on two factors -- what are other countries doing, and how can we sell excess agricultural products to underdeveloped countries.

There are three rotten results of this program.  First, Americans are getting fat, because the cost of food is kept artificially low.  Second, many countries around the world cannot afford to grow their own food because subsidized imports from America are cheaper; these countries, therefore, cannot begin to develop their own economies.  Third, farmers are constantly hurting.

If we wanted government to do the job properly, we should insist that all subsidies be removed (with the possible exception of produce grown fresh -- not processed -- for domestic consumption), and that tariffs reflect not only subsidies granted by other governments (plus a penalty).  That way, the cheapest food would be the best food -- fresh fruits and vegetables.

The result would be a slimmer population at home, and development abroad.

Yes, many domestic farmers would go out of business.  But they are growing far more food that we can consume, and their jobs would be replaced by jobs to create and export other goods to newly-developing countries.

This shift cannot happen overnight; it must be done over time.  But it is the way to put the genie back in the bottle.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 09:48:33 AM UTC

Couldn't Agree More (0.00 / 0)

Yes, I know that many New York milk producers depend on price supports. But in just about every other industry, when competition makes the same product for less it forces others to do the same or get into other fields of work.

I don't want to subsidize corn farmers in Iowa. I don't see why I should apply a different standard just because it happens to be in my home state.

Unfortunately, it seems just about impossible to run for president without supporting corn subsidies (since the first caucus is in Iowa). Likewise, it seems just about impossible to be elected a New York senator without supporting milk subsidies.

devtob: But all New Yorkers eat and drink farm products, and the more those products come from in-state, the better, all around.

I think poor families who are paying more for these products than they would otherwise might have a different opinion.

---

by: dsimon @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 02:06:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

More "kudos" for Kirsten Gillibrand (0.00 / 0)

I was waiting for Robert Harding to offer more "kudos" to Kirsten Gillibrand for her recent support for the G.I. bill.

In a recent press release she says, "Our veterans and their families have sacrificed everything for our freedoms, and in return, they deserve every opportunity for a bright future."

As an U.S. Army veteran, E-5, sergeant, 98C2LRU, 1975-1979, I appreciate that our senator values veterans' sacrifice "for our freedoms," but am dismayed that she, herself, doesn't think those freedoms are worth preserving, at least as it relates to the First and Fourth Amendments of the Bill of Rights.

I put little stock in the words of a senator who proclaims to value the sacrifice of veterans for freedoms that she clearly has no respect for, as she voted to approve unwarranted, unconstitutional wiretapping of American citizens.

I also put little stock in the words of those you who are working so hard to keep fellow Democrats from a having an opportunity to vote for someone who will fight for our freedoms out of a sense of duty and principle ...

... and not just -- as Sen. Gillibrand does -- only when political expediency -- and her corporate contributors -- allow her to do so.

---

by: jwaggoner @ Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 20:11:39 PM UTC