A writer to Voices, 6-26-2008, applauded the recent enactment of a new farm bill, writing that “new foodstamp [sic] investments will be made in Arkansas over the next five years.” Be that as it may, social spending is always an investment for liberals. The only consequence of the investment is more dependence on government. But that is okay when the “investment” is with money belonging to others.

The writer says that the bill is the right thing for the people. It is if we want the people to be more and more dependent on the government for all things. While everyone needs food, is it the business of the government to provide it for a large segment of the population?  She touts the National School Lunch Act. The problem with it is that the government has taken over the responsibility of parents to provide for their children. Parents have willing abdicated their role to “government nannies” who give them breakfast, lunch and in many cases, supper. Instead of teaching parental responsibility, the taxpayers by force of government become responsible for the irresponsible. Worse, the kids grow up believing that the government will provide for them and their children.

Beginning in 1933, FDR rammed through a farm subsidy bill to help small farmers during the depression. The subsidy program has grown in size, and during that growth, the end result is that the federal government has taken over the school lunch program. Instead of doing that which would encourage parents to be responsible for their own families, the liberal way is to handout money and enable the irresponsible to continue being irresponsible. Instead of being enablers for irresponsibility, the parents should be charged with child neglect and abuse for not feeding their children.

Blanche Lincoln received plaudits for helping pass the bill. But there is more than meets the eye to her effort and subsequent vote for the measure. One, she endears herself to the dependent crowd who will continue to vote for her. Two, she has a personal interest in farm subsidies, as does Representative Marion Berry (D-Arkansas). They both own farms and reap handsome rewards from the farm programs. Doesn’t anyone see the conflict of interest with members of Congress voting for bills from which they will ultimately receive benefits due to the farm subsidy provisions? Berry said he would like to be known as the King of Pork. He is getting plenty for himself through farm legislation. Is Blanche the Queen of Pork?

The handouts to people are not free but she wrote, “Through the bill, free fresh fruits and vegetables will be provided to elementary schools where more than half of the children are eligible for free or reduced-price school meals.”  There “ain’t no free lunch” but the liberals just can’t seem to understand that everything has a cost. To those receiving government largess, such handouts appear to be free. But the cost is an increasing national debt; a call for higher taxes to pay for the expanding programs; and worst of all, the increasing dependency on government that destroys freedom from government with a corresponding decrease in liberty. Why does anyone think that standing in a line to apply for food stamps or spending hours on a phone to some nameless voice asking for an increase in benefits is liberty?

 Liberals and their ilk can’t answer those questions so they denigrate those who ask them by throwing out words such as uncaring, uncompassionate, right wingers, miserly conservatives and other monikers. Actually, when liberals behave in that fashion, wear the terms proudly because it means that you have hit them right between the eyes and left them bruised and bloody. Remember, sticks and stones may break your bones, but liberal epitaphs directed at you mean you have scored.

The writer of the letter needs to assess her understanding of freedom, liberty and independence. It certainly isn’t a part of the farm bill she is praising.

© 06-26-2008 DEC