3. Many agricultural producers are attempting to gain a larger share of the consumer food dollar by adding value to their commodities. What role should the federal government play in this industry?
I am no friend of taxes, so I support “tax incentives” wherever possible (where this means a reduction of taxes). I am opposed to all other forms of affirmative incentives, such as government grants or loan guarantees.
Congressman Blunt has an "Agriculture Specialist" who undoubtedly expedites the filling out of the Farm Bureau's detailed questionnaire. I admit I don't know what kind of regulations are currently being considered or enforced relative to value-added commodities. One writer speaks of "regulations involved with food processing," while another says,
Anytime you add value to a commodity, it falls into a totally different category for regulations. And those regulations can be very confusing. Even for those who are considered "experts", it's even confusing.
The Missouri Alternatives Center gives a huge long list of regulators, regulations, and penalties that burden a wide range of agricultural activity any time a farmer attempts to gain market share by adding value to the fruits of his labor. But the list is very general, not specific.
I admit I don't know diddly about agriculture, but if I were to be elected, I would have to take an oath to "support the Constitution," not "be an all-wise, all-knowing Agriculture Czar." I believe in the original intent of the Framers, who viewed the Constitution as a document of “enumerated powers.” The federal government has no authority whatsoever to regulate Missouri agriculture, period. I don't have to know what benefits are purported to be the result of 1,001 government regulations. I would violate my oath of office to impose any one of them. I'm proud to run on a "know-nothing, regulate-nothing" platform.
List of mofb blog posts in this series
Comments on Farm Bureau Policy Statement:
Agricultural Marketing and Regulation