Healthy Government

With recent talk of a "soda tax" in Philadelphia and pundits warnings/support of further government intervention in American dietary habits due to its increased place in health care, I've been thinking a lot about F. D. Roosevelt and one of his pets, the Agricultural Act of 1938. Why is that?

The more one begins to perceive the workings of our government, the more one sees plain as day the complete philosophical bankruptcy of our leaders. Our politicians meander through life as jackals preying on the public and working to fatten the purses of themselves and a few close friends. Our government shows no consistency and frequently outrightly contradicts itself.

Although taxation as a means to curtail undesirable behavior should be recognized as evil and a hallmark of despotism in itself, such goals are too lofty at this stage. However, most can probably agree that government should not jointly penalize unhealthy behavior in one domain and subsidize it in another. Unfortunately government has been partly doing this for years.

Ever walk around the supermarket and wonder why all the cheapest items are so bad for you? You can get an economy sized pack of fudge cookies for the same price as a bunch of bananas. This stems largely from governmental policy. Junk food consists mostly of sugar which is dirt cheap in our country. But raw unprocessed sugar has a hefty tariff imposed on it (not for any health reasons only to protect inefficient domestic producers), so these sweet products are produced using High Fructose Corn Syrup.

This brings us back to FDR and his cronies Henry Wallace and Rexford Tugwell. Passed under the guise of relief (somehow farmer prosperity and farm prices were linked to overall economic health in a series of poorly manufactured causal chains) the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 included federal subsidies for six "basic crops": corn, wheat, tobacco, cotton, rice, and peanuts. In reality the bill was a payoff to huge farm lobby in return for political support. As Economist Donald Paarlberg explains,

"The top 1% of farmers got 21% of the benefits. ... Left out of the program were more than 100 other crops... More, in fact, was left out than was included. The politically influential basic crops produced only about 20% of the industry's income but received 75% of the program benefits."

Relief indeed. This farm bill continues until this present day with benefits being renewed every 4 years without much debate. Notice the content of those basic crops? Not exactly the health conscious person's preferred list of goods. Just looking at recipients of the subsidies in PA we have some startling numbers. In 2009, only 28% of PA farmers collected any form of farm subsidy. In addition, 10% of our state's farmers collected 58% of the subsidies totaling 868 million since 1995.

Corn subsidies in that time frame? 640 million good for the top spot of all subsidies received. In the top 10 there's not all that much I can say promotes good obesity fighting health. Soybeans totaled 96 million and apples 12 million some 17% of the corn expenditures.

So before we talk about a "soda tax" maybe we should talk about subsidies. These expenditures are not necessary and subsidize unhealthy eating. Of course most politicians lack the logic to see the problem in pursuing both courses of action. And any plea to a common health argument is all smoke and mirrors meant as a feeble justification for any new gorging scheme our benefactors intend to impose on us.

(As a side note some studies suggest that HFCS may contribute to increased appetites and body fat compared to sugar. The jury seems to still be out, but it's worth noting)