And let us not forget crony litigation, such as occurred in the Big Tobacco Lawsuit: states, which regulated, permitted and even subsidized the production of tobacco down to the last leaf, were allowed to stand aside from the legal proceedings.

Even as their own health departments had shown them for years what they were doing to their public.

Big government cannot be free market capatalism.

It doesn't matter that we, here, understand the difference between free-market capitalism and crony capitalism. What matters is that the uneducated and ill-informed masses as well as a certain part of corporate America, in many cases the "beneficiaries" of wealth redistribution of one type or another, do not understand the distinction -- or just do not care, as long as the goodies keep coming. And, a little more each election cycle, they have the votes and the influence to give themselves more unearned goodies out of other people's labors.

If this is allowed to continue as it has, it will not end well.

And the sad thing is, them's the rules these days, and if you try to take a principled stand, you'll be played for a chump. Companies that refuse to engage in playing the K Street game wind up getting plastered with regulation and activist lawsuits. Glenn Reynolds has been pointing out how companies that invest in lobbying are getting a far better rate of return than companies that invest elsewhere (e.g., R&D, capital assets, or marketing).

The most federally regulated, subsidized, guided and controlled sectors of the US economy are the agriculture sector and the defense sector. Both are creatures of the federal government, free from free enterprise now for generations, even centuries.

Not surprisingly then. the most mollycoddled, knock-kneed economic weaklings are found in those two sectors.

Let's bring free enterprise to agriculture--I propose a total wipeout of the Agriculture Department, and do a sunset and start-over on out defense sector.

This is what free enterprise is all about.

Odd, how Strossel never mentions this. I imagine it is because he is just another popinjay-jackanape, a catamite for right-wing plutocrats and feckless Quislings.

I remember taking one of those surveys where you answer a whole bunch of questions about your interests, skills, and preferences, and it tells you what kind of career would best suit you. Far and away the best match for me was being a farmer, and I tend to agree - I'd probably love it.

However, I'll never work for the government, and the farmers were nationalized a long time ago. I agree the Dept. of Agriculture should be eliminated. If you allow no laws but those of supply and demand to set the prices for food, what would happen? Would prices rise? Possibly, but the tax savings from the elimination of another bureaucracy would more than make up for that. Oh, but wait ... that only benefits you if you PAY taxes.

I'd probably eliminate the federal Dept. of Education first, though. It's done a lot more harm.

And let us not forget, PJ, this this is another one of those places where W let us down. Clinton's guys actually made some moves towards eliminating farm subsidies, but the Bush admin and the GOP Congress put them all back, and then some.

I'd probably eliminate the federal Dept. of Education first, though. It's done a lot more harm.

I don't know. People can mitigate some of the damage the Dept of Ed causes by taking an active interest in their children's lives. Dept of Ag damage is out of sight and systemic.

Sugar protectionism has caused higher sugar prices which have resulted the nearly ubiquitous use of HFCS in soft drinks which is blamed for skyrocketing obesity rates and health issues (and the related costs).

Ethanol subsidies cost us billions of dollars per year. Brazilian ethanol (made from sugar) is cheaper, but is subject to an import tariff, making it more expensive than home-grown corn ethanol. And the law mandates that ethanol be blended into all gasoline sold in the US. That's a pretty good racket for a corn farmer.

Weather and parasites are major factors in determining crop yields in agriculture. And there is a solid (and free market respecting) argument for using subsidies to bring a degree of stability to the prices of highly volatile commodities. Imagine being a farmer and not being able to predict within any reasonable limits what your yield and, therefore, your income will be this year.

However, the hearty family farmer working his plot of land and dependent upon the vagaries of fortune for a good yield is a wonderful Hollywood myth these days. The majority of agricultural operations supplying food to the US is handled by agri-business conglomerates with operations in many states and countries. Bad weather in Iowa won't affect the operations in California, Pennsylvania, New York, and Argentina.

Paying farmers a subsidy to grow corn, legislating that ethanol be put into all gas sold here, and then taxing competing non-corn ethanol out of the market has created an artificially high demand for corn - yet another "bubble" that clueless legislators created with reckless spending of taxpayer money; but one for which they will take no responsibility and will readily spend more taxpayer money to alleviate the hard times when it bursts.

Conan, you are absolutely correct about amazing cycle of negative effects caused by the outsized influence of the corn lobby. Your comment is a pithy summary of why corn subsidies should be abolished. Regrettably, the outsized influence of the corn states on our politics makes it vanishingly unlikely that they will be anything but expanded. The U.S. of Monsanto.

ummmm, let's not forget the agriculture department is also responsible for the safety of our food supply ....

Good point, ron. And it's also responsible for the standardization of weights and measures.

So, perhaps eliminating the entire USDA is out of the question.

The problems I cited are less the fault of the USDA than of legislators making short-sighted laws with no regard for the inevitable unintended consequences.

...why corn subsidies should be abolished....

Mostly rethought. My problem is not with the government taking steps to ensure that it is financially viable to grow corn in this country. It is in our best interests to maintain some domestic agricultural industry.

My issue is with the ethanol requirement - corn subsidies - sugar protection cycle.

agreed, I would not like to see the heartland lose the ability to feed us and the world, but am not a fan of certain subsidies such as milk, corn, and of course tobacco.

I'm all for us continuing to produce lots of food; what concerns me is the distortions our massive corn and soybean subsidies create; we end up using those crops for things they're not especially good for (e.g., corn ethanol, HFCS, etc.) that only "work" because the subsidies keep prices artificially low.

I haven't lost hope that someday we'll be able to get rid of corporate welfare. I don't know if the Tea Party anger will be enough, but anything that cannot continue forever will not, and the rate at which our country is hemorrhaging money is unsustainable. There will come a time when everything will have to be cut, the good as well as the bad, and when that time comes, the corn lobby will not be able to carve out an exception for itself.

@Wee-Willy: "...another popinjay-jackanape, a catamite for right-wing plutocrats and feckless Quislings."

Dammit! I thought I told you to put that thesaurus away!

The jargon is designed to paint any failure on "capitalism" which makes people turn to socialism--even if socialism is the real culprit. So either way, we are programmed to run towards it even when we think we are running to it. Think about 2008--in response to the massive failure of government meddling, we elected a big government socialist. That would have been like 1945 Germany electing a Nazi because they were sick of the Holocaust (I'm not comparing Obama to a Nazi, that is absurd, I'm just comparing the logic.).

Here's a September 29, 1999 NY Times article about how the Clinton Administration pushed sub prime mortgages: "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people."
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html?sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

And here is the Democratic Party's 2004 reaction when Republicans warned of the looming crash and tried to address it. One of the dems even got cussin mad.
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=184743

So, which party pushed it and obstructed efforts to address it, and which party got the blame for it?

Did anyone see this?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/16/health-care-mandate-applies-amish/

I think it's time to trade in my car for a horse and buggy, and buy a straw hat. It's nicer in the summer than my usual tinfoil, anyway.

@Amy Alkon: "Hah - and I did see that. I think I forgot to blog it. I suspect the Amish population will surge rather soon."
____________

Tonight we're gonna party like its 1699. :)

One-seven-zero-zero, bonnets, wagons for the Men-non-ites...

@Amy Alkon: "Hah - hilarious."
_______

LOL. Not really, wasn't my best joke.

When I was in high school, we played basketball a lot against an Amish school. They were always some of the bests and kindest hosts. Kids joked about how simple their lifestyle was, but I wonder if that made them closer as family and kinder as community.

Hope 2010 is going great for you.