Cranberry growers be damned

9/17/00 "Let the farmer, so far as I am concerned, be damned forevermore. To Hell with him, and bad luck to him. He is a tedious fraud and ignoramus, a cheap rogue and hypocrite, the eternal Jack of the human pack. He deserves all that he ever suffers under our economic system, and more. Any city man, not insane, who sheds tears for him is shedding tears of the crocodile.

"No more grasping, selfish and dishonest mammal, indeed, is known to students of the Anthropoidea*. When the going is good for him he robs the rest of us up to the extreme limit of our endurance; when the going is bad he comes bawling for help out of the public till. Has anyone ever heard of a farmer making any sacrifice of his own interests, however slight, to the common good? Has any one ever heard of a farmer practicing or advocating any political idea that was not absolutely self-seeking--that was not, in fact, deliberately designed to loot the rest of us to his gain?"

H. L. Mencken as quoted in  "Tedious Fraud: Reagan's farm policy and the politics of agricultural marketing orders "

*Anthropoidea is a suborder of primates including chimpanzees, gorillas and orangautans.

Conservative group critical of aid to cranberry growers

9/17/00 Ed. comment: Peter Sperry is one of several journalists like Robert D. Hershey (see right) who believes that the marketplace alone should decide which farmers survive and which farmers go under. 

9/14/00 In an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Peter Sperry of the conservative Heritage Foundation, criticized the plan to help cranberry growers with, among other things, direct cash payments as bad for both taxpayers because of the cost,  and for growers because it delays an inevitable industry shakeout. He is quoted as saying that growers are "in a position right now where they really should be looking to transition to other industries... there are more people in the industry than there is a market for their product." Sperry is the author of Governing Less to Govern Best. He believes that the USDA has outlived its purpose, writing "the U.S. Department of Agriculture was established in 1862 when over 80 percent of all American families earned their living from the land. Less than 1 percent of Americans (3 million) operate farms today. Most of the USDA's programs could be eliminated or consolidated within the Department of the Interior." In addition to his deriding Federal programs to help cranberry growers, he criticizes the following government agriculture programs: $500,000 for apple fire blight; $5,786,000 for wood utilization research; $150,000 for swine waste management; $100,000 for Vidalia onions and $220,000 for low bush blueberry research. 

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Article

9/17/00 If anything is going to derail attempts to utilize a small percentage of the some $22 billion that the government pays to farmers under various programs to help cranberry growers remain in business until the crisis is resolved, it will be the association of this aid with other less popular programs. 

Robert D. Hershey laments the lack of "self reliance" of American farmers when he points out that government money accounts for 40% of farmers' net income in his article entitled "On the Farm: Subsidies Continue to Flourish" in today's New York Times. 

Hershey, who apparently doesn't have any use for economic aid  to farmers under any circumstances, writes "farmers hold a special place in the American psyche, and Congress is particularly reluctant to stint on relief in a presidential election year." Perhaps he would agree with Mencken (see quote on left). It is true that there are a few multi-millionaire cranberry growers and also true that these growers do control Ocean Spray with the one vote, one share rule. However, the large majority of cranberry growers are small farmers. They don't have a house in the Sun Belt to take a second mortgage out on. They probably already have second or even third household jobs, and still to avoid going under they will have to dip into junior's college fund or deplete money they counted on for retirement.

These are hardly the farmers depicted in the articles decrying government assistance to cranberry growers. 

Bailout?

9/15/00 Recent news articles suggest that cranberry growers are seeking a "bailout." Nothing could be further from the truth. Cranberry growers are hoping for government assistance, not a bailout. The government bailed out Chrysler*;  they are not, nor can they or should they, be bailing out the cranberry industry.

Federal dollars will not end the cranberry crisis. However, the proposed aid is crucial in turning the industry around, expanding markets and bringing demand more in line with supply, while allowing farmers to weather the down time.  Cranberry growers are prepared to tighten their belts and sacrifice in order to assure that the United States remains a world player in cranberries.

The government, of course, is funded by taxpayers. Cranberry growers are taxpayers like everyone else. We pay for education, the military, and numerous programs designed to help everyone. As Peter Sperry points out in his comments to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, less then 1% of all Americans are farmers today. What he doesn't discuss is that the United States in losing most of the agrarian way of life has lost a vital part of its culture. This is probably of little consequence to him. He also doesn't discuss the fact that we have lost in the agriculture marketplace to other countries.

Cranberries may be a small crop, but then we aren't talking about an aid package that will break the bank. We are talking about asking our fellow citizens, through their elected representatives, to help us reestablish the cranberry industry and make it viable on the world market in the 21st century.

* After losing $200 million in one quarter, the government loaned Chrysler $1.5 billion in 1979, and was severely criticized by some groups for doing so.