#TXLEGE: Springer Laying Foundation for Beef Shortages

"A fruitful land into barrenness,
For the wickedness of those who dwell in it."
Psalm 107:34

What could POSSIBLY go wrong?!?

One of the iron laws of economics is that price controls beget shortages.  This is true regardless of whether or not said controls are in response to alleged "gouging."  We've already seen this happen with surgical masks in Houston.

[Note: It's actually worse than that...the Houston case shows that just the regulatory uncertainty around these sorts of investigations produces shortages.]

To be fair to Springer, he did respond when we made a similar point of Facebook:

Springer hinges his argument around the idea that there are too few meatpackers in the country.  This gives them the opportunity to exploit the current situation.  Springer's not actually wrong about that point.

But here's the thing: Meatpacking has been a hot mess of protectionist regulation at the Federal level for the past 120 years.  That's the root cause of any practical problems we're having with meatpacker consolidation today.  Had Springer used the current challenges in the beef market to write a letter to his Congressman calling for the repeal of the underlying statutes, that would have been awesome.

But Springer didn't write to his Congressman.  Springer wrote to the Texas Attorney General.  At best, he's misdiagnosing.

Springer's observing a problem caused by too much government, and attempting to "fix" it by calling for even more government.

Nothing good happens when politicians do that.

It's the equivalent of trying to "fix" a knee injury by amputating your leg.

Bottom Line:  Springer's proposal is a great way to turn a short-term challenge into a long-term structural problem.

#TXLEGE: Gonzalez and Springer Collude Against Public

"Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord,
But a just weight is His delight."
Proverbs 11:1

Barf:



So-called "water policy" is an ongoing act of larceny the state of Texas commits against its citizens.  You can read our full archive on the topic here.  Gonzalez and Springer continue this ignominious tradition.

[Note:  This one especially.]

As to the specifics of Prop. 2 this year, Texas Scorecard has details:

PROPOSITION 2: Oppose

How it reads: “The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount not to exceed $200 million to provide financial assistance for the development of certain projects in economically distressed areas.”

What it means: The Texas Water Development Board will be allowed to issue bonds, and therefore go into debt, in order to continue financing water supply, sewer service, and drainage projects in economically distressed areas.

TFR Stance: Oppose Proposition 2
Our Reasoning: State-subsidized debt serves as a disincentive to properly prioritizing spending and distorts market forces.

Aka. Crony Capitalism.

What makes Prop. 2 particularly galling is that the lege got their so-called "water infrastructure development bank" in 2013.  But it's never enough.  Six years later (aka. long enough for voters to forget), they're asking for another slush fund.

[Note: We wonder who's gonna finance the relevant debt.]

Furthermore, there's a dirty little secret to which the lege hopes you never get wise: The state of Texas has plenty of water to meet all of its residential and commercial needs.  The only reason Texas has anything remotely resembling a water "shortage" is because we subsidize growing cotton (a water intensive crop) in the panhandle (an arid climate).  If rural cotton farmers paid market rates for water, it would change the game.

But, of course, a lot of that cotton is grown in Drew Springer's district...so Springer wants the rest of us to pay.

We don't know how Gonzalez et. al. are getting paid, although history would suggest approaching this question with the most cynical lens possible.

Bottom Line: Government (with its attendant friends and cronies) never satisfies its appetite for other people's money.

Chickens of Self-Inflicted Political Wounds Come Home to Roost

"Then the king defiled the high places that were east of Jerusalem, which were on the south of the Mount of Corruption, which Solomon king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Sidonians, for Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites, and for Milcom the abomination of the people of Ammon."
2 Kings 23:13

[Note: You can read Cruz's full rationalization statement on his vote here.]

Sad:

WASHINGTON - The Farm Bill, one of the most important pieces of federal legislation to millions of Texans, successfully made its way through both chambers of Congress this week and awaits the signature of President Donald Trump.

Formally known as the Agriculture and Nutrition Act, the Farm Bill is a massive spending package that will deliver $867 billion over 10 years to subsidize farming and nutrition.

....

It passed with widespread support in the U.S. Senate, including from the two Texans – John Cornyn and Ted Cruz – who serve in that chamber.

....

Cruz's support was noteworthy. As a freshman, he voted against the 2014 Farm Bill. Moreover, he frequently aligns himself with the conservative group Heritage Action which lobbied hard against the Farm Bill's passage because of the lack of more work requirements for SNAP recipients.

"I think it was unfortunate that the conference committee removed the improvements on work requirements that were in the farm bill," he told the Tribune earlier Wednesday. "I would've liked to have seen them there. I introduced an amendment on the floor of the Senate to toughen the work requirements because we should be working to get people out of the trap of dependency and back in the workforce, back on their own feet and back able to provide for their own family."

Cruz narrowly won re-election in November, largely based on strong rural turnout.

There you have it.  The Texas Farm Bureau wanted this bill.  The Texas Farm Bureau just endorsed Cruz.  In his current weakened political position, Cruz can't say no.  It's awful.  It's disgusting.  But it's reality.  Unfortunately.

Taking on the ag. lobby requires tremendous political capital.  In 2014, Ted Cruz had that kind of political capital.  He doesn't anymore.

Bottom Line:  Like it or not, the seeds of Wednesday's disappointment have been being sown for awhile....

#TXLEGE: Lyle Larson's cute little "Water" stunt....

"They are deeply corrupted,
As in the days of Gibeah.
He will remember their iniquity;
He will punish their sins."
Hosea 9:9

Well, at least some bills are moving in the house.

As part of house leadership's extended middle finger to Governor Abbott's special session agenda, today house natural resources committee chairman Lyle Larson heard several of his own bills related to water that Governor Abbott vetoed following the regular session.  Then the committee voted all of them out.  You read that correctly: Larson heard and voted out several bills that the Governor just vetoed; the embedded disrespect is deliberate.

When discussing water policy in Texas, it's important to remember that the whole thing is a corrupt bureaucratic morass.  Disgraced former state representative Jim Keffer was a master at this (see more here and here).  While we've never confirmed it, we've also heard rumors over the years that Larson and Todd Hunter have business interests related to water infrastructure...which makes the fact that a major desalination project in Hunter's district just secured funding last week all the more interesting.

As to the bills themselves, a couple of them (HB 26, HB 228) might have a certain amount of value on the merits.  But this is not the appropriate venue to discuss them.  According to a comment from Trent Ashby during the hearing, the house will probably attempt to push them through creative interpretation of the expedited permitting and the property rights sections of the special session charge [Note: They're probably on solid ground with a couple and nowhere near it on the rest].

In addition, the committee heard testimony on the water development slush fund they passed in 2013 (which, unfortunately, the voters subsequently ratified).  Apparently, they've issued a few billion in various forms over the past couple of years (mostly with multi-decade maturities), are planning to issue another $5.6 billion before 2025, and yet somehow still have almost all of the original $2 billion they were originally allocated in the bank.  Don't ask us how that math works.

Larson closed the hearing with an soliloquy about how "Texas will rue the day" it failed to spend a lot of money on water infrastructure when the next big drought hits.  On the one hand, we're all for prudent planning (and made the point several years ago that if Texas is serious about "infrastructure investment" there were other parts of the budget where they could find the money).  On the other hand, we've learned from experience that when politicians start screaming at the top of their lungs they frequently have something to hide.

Bottom Line: On a certain level, we're impressed by the chutzpah.

-----

Note: That being said, there was one slide shown during the hearing that highlights the biggest problem with water policy in of Texas:

Agriculture consumes over 60% of the water in this state despite the fact that a tiny fraction of the population works in the industry, while all municipal use (ie. residential and commercial) is only 27%.

In other words: STOP GROWING COTTON IN THE PANHANDLE!!!

Ted Cruz rebukes Corporate Welfare for Agriculture

"and for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel,"
Ephesians 6:19

Last Saturday, Ted Cruz spoke at a big Agribusiness event in Iowa.  He restated his opposition to ethanol mandates and other forms of central planning.  Cruz's remarks below:



Highlights:

• "I don't think Washington should be picking winners and losers when it comes to energy."

• Energy policy: "Should be driven by the market."

• "People are pretty fed up, I think, with politicians who run around and tell one group one thing, tell another group another thing and then they go to Washingon and they don't do anything they said they would do."

• Re wind energy: "Once again, I don't think it should be the Federal government dictating that."

• "When it comes, in the energy business, to anyone engaging in picking winners and losers; and listen, I've put this more broadly for corporate welfare, I have been an outspoken opponent of corporate welfare."

• "I've been outspoken on allowing the Export-Import bank expire."

• "I have every bit of faith that businesses can continue to compete, can continue to do well, without having to go on bended knee to Washington asking for subsidies, asking for special favors; I think that's how we got into this problem to begin with."

• Strong BiPartisan agreement "outside of Washington" on immigration and border security.
• Gang of 8: "Was a bad bill."

• "The radical left loves attacking people as anti-Science whenever anyone dares question their computer models on global warming....The hardcore left loves ridiculing Christians who believe scripture that says 'God created the Heaven and the Earth.'....But when it comes to biotech, these same voices become the most anti-Science zealots we've ever seen."

Another Good Vote from Congressman Roger Williams

Earlier today, the U.S. House voted on an atrocious farm bill; unfortunately, it passed, but there was one interesting tidbit:

---- NAYS 166 ---

....

Williams

Other noteworthy nay's include Justin Amash, Michelle Bachman, Louie Gohmert, and Steve Stockman; every other Republican in the Travis County delegation voted aye.

Credit where due: Texas Democrats, Joaquin Castro, Lloyd Doggett, and Shelia Jackson Lee also voted no.

Farm Subsidies: The Continuing Failure of U.S. House Republicans

 

This morning, I received an e-mail from Americans for Prosperity, money quote:

It’s hard to believe, but the numbers show that a whopping eighty percent of Farm Bill spending goes toward food stamp and nutrition programs.  The rest is welfare of a different kind: corporate welfare. The bill includes pork-like programs that do more to support special interests than small farmers, since the benefits go toward the biggest and best-connected farms that know how to navigate the Washington maze.

Every five years Congress must vote to reauthorize these USDA programs or watch them expire, meaning that the so-called Farm Bill is an opportunity to make serious reforms and real cuts to the billions we waste on farm subsidies and food stamps.

The Senate already rammed the Farm Bill through, and they failed to make meaningful cuts. The
House of Representatives is expected to take up the issue this week, and they need to hear from you that you oppose spending hundreds of billions of dollars on even more food and farm welfare.

With all due respect to AFP, the real outrage isn't the content of the bill, it's the fact that a group of allegedly conservative representatives, who were elected with an explicit mandate to cut spending, are doing a farm bill in the first place.  Our government has operated has operated exclusively via continuing resolution for three years now (*).  Nothing ever gets done under normal business these days, yet the House GOP is taking the time to do a farm bill.  Why?!?

The answer, of course, is pork.  Much like the Highway Bill House Republicans passed earlier this year, farm subsidies are a favorite tool for big-spending Republicans to continue business as usual.  I've written about dismantling the U.S. Department of Agriculture before, because nothing good comes out of Federal farm programs.  That Congressional Republicans have chosen to make agricultural pork a priority clearly demonstrates how little they've learned.

After 18 months, the failures of Republicans in the 112th Congress are myriad.  They caved on the Debt Ceiling.  On Fast and Furious, they have combined buffoonish rhetorical bluster with far too little action far too late.  They've caved (multiple times) on the Keystone Pipeline.  They haven't (with the notable exception of Congressman Pete King) lifted a finger to address the ongoing infiltration of the U.S. Government by the Muslim Brotherhood.  Heck, they caved on defunding Obamacare.  On each of these examples, the Republican position has enjoyed public support, yet Republicans in Congress have allowed Barack Obama to psych them out using Alinsky's first rule.  Given countless opportunities to go for the jugular against Obama, House Republicans flinch every single time.

In the 113th Congress, this cannot continue.

As long as the conservative grassroots continues to do what we've been doing for three years, Republicans will win bigger in 2012 than they won in 2010.  Simultaneous with winning the current election, the conservative grassroots needs to lay the foundation to hold President Romney and the 113th Congress accountable in 2013 and 2014.  On a practical level, that means a post-election, mid-November, leadership fight.  John Bohener (along with Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan) and Mitch McConnell have repeatedly demonstrated inept political judgement combined with spines on linguine.  In 2013, Louie Gohmert and Jim DeMint must run Congress.

Returning to the original topic of this post, you can help AFP kill the Farm Bill here.

* I apologize for linking to Wikipedia but it's the site that presents the data most clearly.

Why We Need to Dismantle the Agriculture Department

Today, in discussing this story, Rush made the following point:

But I'm gonna tell you what's gonna happen. This is as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning and setting in the evening. All these organic food people are eventually going to become conservatives, because what's happening now is the government is figuring out that these organic food places exist, and that they're outside the regulatory process, and they're outside the tax- and-fee structure. And that can't stand. So what's gonna happen is the cities where these people operate and the state they operate, and the Feds are gonna get involved they're gonna start regulating this stuff eventually. They're gonna regulate what your free range chicken is given to eat.

Rush got me thinking about Agriculture Policy, and the basic existence of a U.S. Government Department of Agriculture scares me. There are lots of economic arguments against subsidizing agriculture (starting with the fact that's it a corporate welfare boondoggle), but the core issue is who controls land and the production of food.

Whenever Communists come to power, they seize control of land and food production.  Stalin did it.  Mao did it.  Fidel Castro did it.  Obviously, the U.S. Government hasn't (yet) seized farmland; but the infrastructure is there.  At this point, I've read enough Marxism, and seen enough things I thought impossible actually happen, that I can't put ANYTHING past this government.  After this government's assault on Chrysler do you really trust them with land and food?!?

As I've discussed before, Obama (and the New Left's) goal was "a long march through the institutions."  A federal Agriculture Department that controls food and land is a tool they can use in that march.  The 2010 Shirley Sherrod scandal proved that the Agriculture Department is already populated with Communists.  Whether or not some of the conspiracy theories are true, the fact that a U.S. Government Agriculture Department exists in the first place threatens every landowner in the country.  Given everything we've learned about Marxism via stealth, we need to dismantle the tools they can use in the future.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture: End it, don't Mend it.