Stephen Fincher - Welfare Queen For Congress

Stephen Fincher, a Republican candidate for congress in Tennessee's 8th district, favors small-government, lower taxes, and he has an appropriate disdain for Obamacare. 
Good for him.
He's also a gospel singer. 
He's a succesful cotton farmer. 

And in one eleven-year period, from 1995 - to 2006, Fincher and his wife received 2.5 million dollars in crop subsidies from government you. 

Now, just for the sheer joy of it, imagine if the Democrats dared to nominate a traditional welfare queen for Congress.  Someone who sits around the house all day, collecting welfare and producing little babies who will reliably vote for Democrats.  Do you think there might be an uproar? 

So what is there about this form of welfare that bathes Stephen Fincher in such down-home, cottony goodness? 
When our government subsidizes a particular crop, it confuses the price signals.  In a truly free market, if too much cotton was produced, the price would drop.  Fewer people would grow cotton.  The price would then reflect what people were willing to pay for it, and what farmers would willingly be paid to grow it. 
If not enough cotton was on the market, the price would rise.  More and more people would grow cotton until the price dropped again. 
Are Obama and Pelosi and Reid paying too many people to grow cotton?  We'll never know. 
But are you having to pay too much for cotton T-shirts, shirts, socks and sheets because of farm subsidies and prohibitive tariffs on cotton imports?  Hell yes. 

And what do other countries do, when they learn that we're giving Stephen Fincher $2.6 million dollars to grow cotton?  They retaliate against American imports into Brazil.  Then Obama and Pelosi and Reid have to do even more silly things to make it ok with Brazil. 

So here's the deal: to avoid retailiation by Brazil on U.S. exports of all kinds of things that have nothing to do with cotton, U.S. taxpayers -- that's you -- will send the Brazilian cotton industry $147 million a year in aid.

It apparently has not occurred to the Obama administration (remember all the indignant campaign talk about Washington lobbyists?) or Congress to simply end the subsidies.

So we  ( you ) will continue to subsidize U.S. cotton farmers AND now we'll also be subsidizing Brazilian cotton farmers.

What would happen next in an ideal world?  Well, if the Brazilians were smart, they would totally open up their market to U.S. cotton, along with every other product that we subsidize.  Because if U.S. voters really are dumb enough to produce cotton at a high price and then sell it at a low cost to Brazilians.....well, we deserve to be ripped off even more, don't we? 

Here's Fincher trying to justify his welfare queen status:

“People are quick to say with their mouth full, ‘Well, the American farmer is on the dole,’ ” Fincher said. “But a loaf of bread is two bucks when it could be 10 bucks. I know what it is with the government in my business. We would be all for not having government in our business, but we need a fair system.”

No, no, no.  We are still paying then 10 bucks, but we're paying it to Washington, which takes a cut off the top before passing the 10 bucks to their constituents.   (Instead of merely paying a lower price to Kroger's or Albertson's or Publix or A&P.)  
I've read various economists stating that if we were to end all subsidies, quotas and tariffs, it would save the typical household somewhere between $4,000 to $10,000. 

Here's another Fincher supporter:

(David) Nance, of the Gibson County Patriots, said, "I don't see the agricultural subsidy thing as an issue at all," adding: "If it were an issue, then we would never elect a farmer to Congress at all. Because basically, most farmers get agriculture subsidies. If they didn't, they'd be broke, and we'd be buying our food from China."

David, David, David.    They wouldn't all be broke.  Some might have to start doing something else.  There would be fewer agri-millionaires. 
Here's a cool map of all the farmers in Manhattan who collect $250,000 per year in farm subsidies.  Go here for an explanation.  Big dots represent the $250,000 per year Long Island farmers.  The little dots represent those farmers that you are paying less.  Their commutes from Manhattan to their John Deere tractors upstate must be long indeed. 

Seriously, these Manhattanites need a farm subsidy about like Pope Benedict needs a farm subsidy. 

Our food would be cheaper if Obama, Pelosi, and Reid would simply allow us to purchase food from whoever had the best price.  It doesn't matter if good comes from the other side of I-35, the other side of Tarrant County, the other side of the Red River, the other side of the Rio Grande, or the other side of the Pacific.
Who really believes that the lines of latitude and longitude of the farm matter? 
How much more in taxes would you be willing to pay to keep Mr. and Mrs. Fincher in the style to which they've grown accustomed?   
But some of you, every time you eat a cotton sandwich, or enjoy a cotton and pasta casserole, you feel safer knowing that your food was grown here.  And you delight in knowing that you paid more than you had to. 

The National Cotton Council:  Protecting America's food supply.