Contact Us Advertising Information Online exclusives Cover Story Buzz Feature In Case You Missed It Vote 2009 Boulderganic Fall 2009 Student Guide 2009 Boulder Weekly Sweet 16 Anniversary Boulderganic 2009 Summer Scene 2009 Email Newsletter Legal Services Best of Boulder 2009 Annual Manual 2009 Newspaper of the Future Kids Camp Guide 2009 Wedding Marketplace 09 Jobs available Student Guide 2008 Best of Boulder 2008 Annual Manual 2008 Join Our Mailing List
|
May 8-14, 2008 editorial@boulderweekly.com
See Jim Hightower
See Danish Plan
See Stew's Views
Wright is wrong
What are the possibilities of this even happening? That an American-African pastor would, for some strange reason, attempt to bring down the hopes of generations of whites and blacks in America (not to mention people all over the world), to bring this sickness of race in this country to an end if only symbolically, profoundly symbolically, to begin with?
Barack Obama seemed very genuinely moved nonetheless in his final and very serious separation from the Reverend (Wrong) Wright. I don’t know what more the man can do. Worse, I have absolutely no idea why Wright feels so compelled to destroy Obama!
Yo lo siento.
Grant D. Cyrus/Boulder
Don’t cut food production
The 2007 U.S. Farm Bill currently being considered by the United States Congress is a multi-billion dollar farm subsidy bill renewed every five years. It is a continuation of the 2002 Farm Bill. The bill first became law in 1933 as a means of preventing farmers from taking a loss on their annual production of crops (corn, wheat, cotton, rice and soybeans). The government paid farmers the difference between what they sold and what it cost to produce. At the time it was a brilliant means of “priming the pump” so that farmers could be temporarily shielded from the effects of the Great Depression on their industry.
Today’s Farm Bill is a clear example of a government program being continued way beyond its original intention. Essentially, the government now pays farmers to under-produce crops in order to charge higher prices. Adding to the controversy is that it gives two-thirds of the subsidy to the top 10 percent of farmers. As with most government programs, bureaucratic self-perpetuation has allowed for this subsidy to become corrupted.
Not surprisingly, the government has it backwards. Why not let the farmers produce as many crops as possible, sell what they can on the world market and give their surplus to the poor. Whatever they don’t sell, the government should pay them for and distribute it among those in poverty. In a world facing a food crisis never before seen in the history of humankind, we should never halt the production of food under any circumstances.
Joe Bialek/Cleveland, Ohio
Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com
Back to top
|
| |
