Friday, May 16, 2008

The protection racket

At the Corner, David Freddoso writes about the recently passed farm bill. He quotes an Indianapolis Star column:

...the bill contains another protectionist element, one that hurts hungry people around the world. The Bush administration wanted to be able to use foreign aid money to buy food at locations near where it's needed by starving people. That move would reduce transportation costs and allow foreign aid dollars to be stretched further. The bill instead continues a requirement that all food aid must be purchased from U.S. farms.

Freddoso then writes:

...our government creates one problem, then creates another, bigger problem in order to solve it, then creates a third problem, even bigger, to solve that one — et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum. And two or more wrongs cannot make a right.

Well. That is certainly indisputably and incontrovertibly self-evident. However, being an ardent conflationist, we may see a potential opportunity that would prove the exception to the Freddoso Rule.

The article says that the requirement that all food aid be US-produced increases transportation costs.

You know what else it means?

An increased carbon footprint.

Why not take the recent decision to have that poor beleaguered Arctic creature listed as “threatened” as part of the Endangered Species Act to argue that this bill kills polar bears?

Baby polar bears.

Because, you know, helping the poor, starving people in third-world countries is not enough motivation to act.

MORE: Hugh Hewitt, call your office!

No comments:

Post a Comment