• Home
  • About CF&P
    • Board of Directors
    • Staff
    • Contact Us
  • Blog
  • News
    • Press Releases
    • Updates
  • Publications
    • Prosperitas Studies
    • Testimony and Speeches
  • Opinion & Commentary
  • Videos
    • Economic Lessons Series
    • Economics 101 Educational Series
  • Donate

Navigate

  • Home
  • About CF&P
    • Board of Directors
    • Staff
    • Contact Us
  • Blog
  • News
    • Press Releases
    • Updates
  • Publications
    • Prosperitas Studies
    • Testimony and Speeches
  • Opinion & Commentary
  • Videos
    • Economic Lessons Series
    • Economics 101 Educational Series
  • Donate
A Case Study of How Interest Groups “Milk” the Public

A Case Study of How Interest Groups “Milk” the Public

Posted on December 16, 2012 by Dan Mitchell

Since I want to shut down the Department of Agriculture, that obviously means getting rid of the various subsidy programs that line the pockets of politically connected agri-businesses.

To get an idea of how these corrupt programs operate, I strongly encourage you to read Paul Moreno’s column in National Review. Here’s a sampling of his expose on dairy subsidies, starting with some history.

…Dairy farmers were pioneers in interest-group politics. They have long been adept at using the power of government… The dairy lobby’s first target was margarine… Dairy farmers organized to drive oleo from the market. They claimed that oleo was harmful — manufactured, they charged, from “dead horses, dead hogs, dead dogs, mad dogs, and drowned sheep.” They alleged that an “oleo trust” was not only driving dairy farmers to the wall, but also impairing the marriage market, because “women are no longer a necessary adjunct to the farmer lads to help them create wealth, owing to the oleo-cotton-oil-soap-fat combine.” …The dairymen finally got Congress to enact a two-cent-per-pound excise tax on oleo in 1886. This was the first time that Congress had used its internal taxing power for regulatory purposes, rather than to raise revenue. …Organized dairy’s next target was “filled milk.” This was skim milk to which vegetable oil was added to give the texture of whole milk. Although it provided all of the protein and most of the vitamins of whole milk at a much lower price (and with fewer cardiovascular hazards), the dairy lobby claimed that it was unhealthful. They even resorted to racism, noting that cow’s milk was a pillar of Western civilization, superior to the “oriental” menace of coconut oil. Congress prohibited the shipment of filled milk in interstate commerce in 1923.

But some of those forms of intervention are ancient history, only interesting to those of us who study the corrupt nexus of big government and various sleazy interest groups.

But Paul explains how the current morass of dairy subsidies came about.

Milk baths are good for the skin, but bad for the wallet

Perhaps the most egregious exercise of dairy power was a New York State law of 1933 that declared that milk was a business “affected with a public interest” and allowed the state to set dairy prices. The New York board set 9 cents per quart as the minimum retail price of milk. A Rochester grocer, Leo Nebbia, was prosecuted for selling two quarts of milk and a loaf of bread for 18 cents. Why, in the midst of the distress and privation of the early 1930s, did New York want to raise the price of milk? The idea was that this would raise the income of dairy farmers, who would then purchase more industrial goods, thus stimulating the economy. The Supreme Court accepted this reasoning, giving state governments virtually unlimited power to enact economic regulations. Such counterintuitive trickle-up economic theory helped to turn the 1929 recession into the prolonged Great Depression. Ever since, the federal government has been trying to keep small dairy farmers in business through an elaborate price-support system.

Isn’t that just wonderful. The politicians justified a corrupt form of intervention by citing the crackpot theory of Keynesian economics.

Sort of reminds me of clueless Nancy Pelosi saying the best way to create jobs was paying people not to work.

With every passing day, I realize this famous poster is actually an understatement.


big government Economics Government intervention government spending subsidies
December 16, 2012
Dan Mitchell

Dan Mitchell

Dan Mitchell is co-founder of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity and Chairman of the Board. He is an expert in international tax competition and supply-side tax policy.

Find Us On Facebook

Follow Us On Twitter

Tweets by @CFandP
"I write to express support for the Center for Freedom and Prosperity's support of tax competition."
    
~ Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate ~


 "By fighting against an international tax cartel and working to preserve financial privacy, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity is protecting taxpayers, both in America and around the world."
    
~ Rep. Dick Armey, Former Majority Leader, U.S. House of Reps. ~
  • Home
  • About CF&P and CF&P Foundation
  • Donate
  • News
  • Publications
  • Opinion and Commentary
  • Market Center Blog
  • Videos
© Copyright 2014, All Rights Reserved.