Change of Plans

That's what I call "Bringing the country together!"

Don't I wish the US looked like that - no Dakota's, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma or boring bits of Texas. No longer would we have to endure spending two days of every vacation going west, nor would residents be relegated to living in "flyover country". While we would certainly lose lots of agriculture, I think that's ok.

Primarily we would lose corn. Half of our corn crops go to ethanol because our farmers get huge subsidies to grow it for that purpose. Nevermind that corn is a poor source of ethanol (switchgrass and cellulosic stuff is better) and we have high trade barriers to importing non-corn ethanol to protect farmers and we pay  taxes to fund a $0.49 per gallon subsidy at the pump ... subsidizing corn is a huge financial drag on our federal, state and personal economies. If ethanol was not subsidized it would cost a lot more. Nor is ethanol about energy independence or clean air. It's all about taking our tax dollars and giving it to large corporate farms. Don't believe me? Surf over to Minnesota's Department of Agriculture website and note program goal's #1 and #3:


1. To build a new market for the state's largest crop (corn).
3. To increase the number of New Generation Farmer Coops (NGCs**). These businesses were designed to provide farmer members greater direct cash return for their crops.
I won't bother to argue the other points - I have to get off this soapbox sooner or later, and don't want the drop to be too high.

The high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) would go away too. That's the other stuff farmers get subsidized to grow corn for, and it's a very cheap way to add sugar to anything we eat, from cookies to soda pop to Twinkies to crackers to flavored syrups in your favorite Starbucks dessert coffee.  This is partially what is fueling our obesity epidemics and leading to unprecedented levels of diet-induced diabetes. Eliminating HFCS would force food manufacturers to go back to more expensive sugar from other sources (and I use "food" loosely as it includes soda and other junk foods). Well, ok, there is probably a whole lot of butter and HFCS in Smokey Row Cafe's chocolate oat bars but I only have one of those every other week, and I can afford to pay more for it to be made of sugar instead of Karo syrup.

And if you think taking away the subsidies for ethanol and corn syrup will hurt the small farmers think again: 95% of farm subsidies go to large corporate farms. I bet the small farmers are paying taxes to subsidize the giants (like Monsanto) trying to squeeze them out. The only winners here are banks and politicians.

Raising the prices of bad food is a good thing. Instead of subsidizing corn for fuel and junk food, we should subsidize corn (and broccoli and carrots and peas and wheat etc) for use as REAL FOOD. Then it might be cheaper to feed a family on fruits and veggies instead of McDonald's and Hostess Cupcakes.
Don't get me started on vegetable oil and French Fries being the vegetable most often consumed in the US. Even among kids.

We would do away with the jokes about "corn-fed midwestern girls".

Back my vision of the US.

We would also lose some ranchland, but since these ranches grow corn-fed cattle, and what little corn we grew would feed people instead of cars and health problems, there would be less beef to go around. Again, this isn't a bad thing. We would still have some corn-fed beef, but we would have just as much ranch-fed feed which is better for you anyway and tastes more like beef and less like fat. Besides, Brazilian and Argentinian beef tastes better anyway.

So what's the point of my post again than to make a bunch of farmers angry?

Oh yeah. Change of plans.

I didn't go to Colorado this weekend, so there won't be any blog updates about mountains and curvy roads and brewpubs. Sorry. You'll have to wait until Paul and I ride west in August.