Let the Cutting Begin: Department of Agriculture

But let’s start taking a top to bottom look at how our government spends money and start asking why? On some topics we will come away and say, “That makes sense. That is a fundamental responsibility of the federal government.” In other cases, we will wonder either about the need to do something at all, or whether to move something to another level of government closer to the people.

Let’s start with the Department of Agriculture 

Why do we need a bigger Department of Agriculture when we are no longer a largely agrarian economy? We do still grow a lot of food, but much of it is produced by large agribusinesses. On the one hand we have crop subsidies so that the prices of food don’t drop so much that farmers would be squeezed out of business. On the other hand we have a huge food stamp program because poor people need help buying food? Well which one is it? Is food too cheap or too expensive? Here is a novel approach, let the market decide.

The stock response from the left is that abolishing some of these programs would be extreme. Do we want unhealthy food and dangerous drugs on the market? Let’s examine the FDA and drugs. I can’t seem to turn on my television without some law firm saying call 1-800-BADDRUG, because there are dangerous drugs on the market. Really? I thought that was the reason we spend billions of dollars every year to fund the FDA. So it seems they have a problem keeping bad drugs off the market. On the flip side, let’s say a new drug is invented that can keep terminally ill patients alive and let’s say the projection is it will save 40,000 lives per year. If it takes the FDA ten years, typically, to approve a new drug, that means that 400,000 people will die waiting for a drug that could save their lives. So it seems that the FDA has a problem keeping bad drugs off the market and putting good drugs on the market. Since drug companies are not in business to kill people and if they do they will soon be out of business, perhaps we need to take another look at disclosing more information to the public and let the public decide whether to accept the risks. Some may say, I’m not taking any drug that hasn’t been on the market for at least five years. Some may say, I will take any drug that will give me a chance, because right now I will die anyway.

The same can be said for dangerous foods. Do we really believe that every food product consumed in the U.S. has been inspected to be safe? How do we typically find out about tainted food? Is it that someone eats it and gets sick, or an inspector finds it? If it is the former, perhaps we should have disclosure of more information and put the burden of proof on the food company. If Johnson meat company sells meat with e coli and people lose their faith in Johnson meat company, they will soon be out of business.

 If an information based approach is not sufficient for people to believe in their food supply, then let the states and local government decide what their citizenry wants to have. A large federal bureaucracy who is ineffective doesn’t serve the purpose.

 Here are some suggested spending cuts from the Cato Institute that would save $131 billion