Issue 2 is a Pile of Manure

Issue 2 is a Pile of Manure

by Mark Luedtke

 

Issue 2 reads like a series of contradictions: Why do farmers need a government bureaucracy to tell them how to take care of their animals and make their food safe? The farmers are the experts, not bureaucrats. What do farmers need protection from?

Recently the Humane Society led a successful campaign in California, after victories in Florida and Arizona, to ban keeping livestock in tiny cages. After their success in California, the Humane Society approached farmers in Ohio about ending the practice of confining calves in tiny veal crates, pigs in tiny gestation cages, and egg-laying hens in tiny battery cages. The big, corporate farmers who keep animals locked up their entire lives in cages so small they can't turn around or spread their wings are running scared.

But they also see an opportunity for a power grab. Since the beginning of civilization, businesses have used the power of government to avoid fair competition. Contrary to what politicians and the press tell us, regulation of the private sector always works in the favor of the biggest companies and puts small businesses out of business. That's because the biggest companies have the money to buy favor from politicians and regulators to make regulations work in their favor. They consistently lead lobbying efforts for more regulation.

Regulations are a form of corporate welfare. You can think of regulations as a tax buried in the higher cost of the regulated products we buy that goes directly to the big corporations that control the regulators. Regulations are a subsidy for corporations. That's why Phillip Morris was the leading lobbyist in support of tobacco regulation.

So
Ohio's corporate farmers have taken this opportunity to try and put
their small competitors out of business. If Issue 2 passes, politically
powerful corporate farmers will control a board of 13 unaccountable
bureaucrats which will set regulations that favor the corporate farms
at the expense of the small farmers and Ohio consumers.

At least the amendment's writers were half honest when they declared that Ohio's corporate farmers want protection, but they didn't tell us the whole story. Another contradiction in the story is corporate farmers want us to believe they are using government to protect them from government. That makes no sense. They would have us believe they want protection from potential legislation pushed by the Humane Society, but the corporate farmers are in no danger from that. Three-fifths of each house of the legislature to voted for their power grab. They expect over 50 percent of voters to support it. With support like that they can defeat any legislation or ballot initiative backed by the Humane Society. What the corporations really want protection from is competition from small farmers. That's why the Ohio Farmers Union opposes this amendment.

Ohio is already suffering a depression. The Tax Foundation just updated its ranking of state business tax climates for fiscal year 2010, and Ohio is once again 47^th out of 50, drowning in oppressive government along with California, New York and New Jersey. One of the powers of this new bureaucracy will be to "encourage locally grown and raised food." It can only do that by discouraging food produced out of state from coming in. This protectionist amendment would make Ohio even more unfriendly to business by driving up the price of agricultural products, deepening our depression much like Smoot-Hawley helped created the Great Depression.

One of the major complaints people have about government is lack of accountability. Election after election, regardless of which party wins, nothing fundamental changes. That's because non-elected, unaccountable bureaucrats run our governments at the federal, state and local level. Changing parties just changes the drapes and the rhetoric. Since lack of accountability is a well-known problem, it makes no sense for Ohio voters to support creating a new, unaccountable bureaucracy to control Ohio farms.

Ohio already has a bureaucracy for regulating agriculture which makes farm products more expensive and our taxes higher. We're suffering too much from oppressive government already, but this new bureaucracy is designed to exercise more power to make things worse. The bureaucrats would have the power to set rules for livestock, poultry and animal care, food safety, supply and availability of locally produced food, farm management, and disease prevention, but the amendment has no provision for oversight. It takes these powers away from the farmers. Because it would be constitutionally created, it would be the ultimate unaccountable bureaucracy wielding the power to destroy Ohio farms and farmers, and that's exactly what it would do over time.

Even if this bureaucracy was a positive thing, and it's not, there's no reason to create it with a constitutional amendment. The Ohio constitution should be used to specify the basic functions of government, not as a substitute for legislation and a way to avoid oversight. The corporate farmers sense an opportunity because of their power in the legislature to get three-fifths votes in each house, and they're trying to hit a home run instead of settling for legislation to do the same thing.

Of course farmers who don't put their animals in tiny cages aren't exactly supporters of freedom either. You can bet if Issue 2 fails, most of those farmers will support a law that bans tiny cages for calves, pigs and hens so they can gain a competitive advantage over the corporate farms and make food more expensive for all of us.

This illustrates the inevitable consequence of big government. When we give professional politicians our power, they turn around and sell it to the highest bidder. That's how they advance their careers and provide for their families. Special interests on every side of every sector of the economy constantly try to use government to further their interests at the expense of everybody else. Big government divides the people into winners and losers on every issue, but every winner on one specific issue is a loser on hundreds more, so ultimately we're all losers. That's why we should take our power back from government and leave these issues to individuals to decide so we all win.