Further to David Boaz’s post below on the Democratic Leadership Council’s recent spending plans, Senator Hillary Clinton has called for a “rural renaissance” to “restore the promise and prosperity to main streets and rural communities.” The full press release can be viewed here, but these are the main points:
- A “national broadband strategy” to “coordinate and maximize federal resources” which would newly include a National Rural Broadband Innovation Fund and the creation of a single office run by an “administrator” that would provide a “one‐stop shopping clearing house for innovators and businesses that want to expand broadband in rural areas.” Strange, but from where I’m standing, the Internet seems to have evolved pretty well without government interference so far.
- A “Rural Regional Investment Program, which would provide equity investments to fund innovative opportunities and partnerships in rural areas” that would “provide rural communities with flexible resources to develop comprehensive, collaborative, locally‐controlled planning and to foster innovative community and economic development strategies.” Senator Clinton’s proposal also includes more “help” in administering small private loans “pooling private capital and administering that capital through trusted intermediaries” (overseen by the Federal government, presumably). As the seemingly inexhaustible stream of money to ethanol production has shown, investment money to rural areas seems to flow quite nicely when investors see promising (if pork‐induced) returns.
- Speaking of ethanol, Senator Clinton would like to see the creation of a $1 billion Strategic Energy Fund to “support [the] rapid development of renewable energy, including biofuels.”
- Then there are a host of other measures, including so‐called “green” payments, a more reliable safety net that would “help manage risk” and include counter‐cyclical payments (the most trade distorting and offensive kind to our trade partners), and more spending on health care and rural education.
The US Government has been lavishing subsidies on farmers since the New Deal in the 1930s, and has spent over $55 billion propping up the agricultural sector since the enactment of the 2002 Farm Bill. Far from giving away even more of taxpayers’ money, surely it is time for the government to stop giving agriculture special treatment and to allow farmers to carry the risks and reap the rewards of their investments, just like every other businessperson in America.