I own a 20 acre tract of farmland that qualifies for various US Department of Agriculture programs. (Yes, I sometimes get paid to grow nothing. Does that make me a welfare recipient? Is growing nothing the same as doing nothing?) Each year they send some papers for me to sign, accompanied by a document that explains the form I'm signing and the rules governing participation in their programs. A definition from the document:
Socially Disadvantaged Farmer or Rancher means, as determined in accordance with subparagraph 3P of this Appendix, a member of a group that, as declared and approved by the Deputy Administrator, is considered for these purposes to be a group whose members have been subject generally to racial, ethnic, or gender prejudice because of their identity as members of a group without regard to their individual qualities. The groups have been identified to include: (1) American Indians and Alaskan Natives; (2) Asian-Americans; (3) Black or African-Americans; (4) Hispanic-Americans; (5) Women. Other groups will not be included as a group to which this definition applies unless so declared by the Deputy Administrator. Persons submitting the contract should not check the box for socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher unless they certify that they are members of one of the five specific groups named above.
Note the phrases "have been subject generally to" and "without regard to their individual qualities." In other words, if you belong to one of the listed groups, you can be rich and famous and still be considered by the USDA to be socially disadvantaged. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both socially disadvantaged in the eyes of the USDA.
Why should the benefits of being classified as socially disadvantaged accrue only to those subject to racial, ethnic, or gender prejudice? Why not regional prejudice? The "intellectual elite" in the northern states are clearly prejudiced against the common folk of the south. They think that if we gather to speak out against the move toward bigger government we'll all turn into raging lunatics. They're saying it every night on TV.
A ton of people, me included, are prejudiced against trial lawyers. So why shouldn't they be considered socially disadvantaged.
This and all other government righting-wrongs programs are completely absurd. In fact it's absurd that the federal government has a Department of Agriculture.
- Government is Friction
- We Have Too Many Experts
- Money is Not Wealth
- The Minimum Wage and Cotton Pickers
- Arizonans React to San Diego Boycott
- Let's Use Afghanistan as an Entitlement Testbed
- Socially Disadvantaged Farmer or Rancher
- Even Charity is Not Always a Good Thing
- Why Not Give Universal Footwear a Try?
- Supporters of New Health Care Acts Disingenuous
- anhinga on The Minimum Wage and Cotton Pickers
- Carson on The Minimum Wage and Cotton Pickers
- anhinga on The Minimum Wage and Cotton Pickers
- Carson on Arizonans React to San Diego Boycott
- anhinga on Arizonans React to San Diego Boycott
- anhinga, 31 July 2010
- Carson, 19 June 2010
- Liquid Egg Product, 18 June 2010
- Carson, 02 May 2010
- Liquid Egg Product, 01 May 2010
- Anhinga
- Carnival of Climate Change
- Ekawaaz
- Flashpoint
- Florida Cracker
- I Can Plainly See
- Ironic Surrealism
- Liquid Egg Product
- Ms Understood
- The Hatemongers Quarterly
- Truth, Lies and Character