Recently Congress sent the latest Farm Bill to the president. The bill features brand new federal programs, expansion of existing subsidies, more food stamps and more foreign food aid. This bill hits the taxpayer hard, while at the same time ensuring food prices will remain elevated. The president vetoed the bill, citing concerns over its costs and subsidies for the wealthy in a time of high food prices and record farm income. Nevertheless, this over-reaching, government-expanding Farm Bill will soon be law.

The truth is most farmers simply want honest pay for honest work. However, if the government is providing competing farms with advantages, and one wants to remain a farmer, one must seek a proportional advantage from government. It is a difficult position for the farmer. Some are better at qualifying for taxpayers’ largesse than others as evidenced by the fact that more than 60% of the subsidies go to just 10% of recipients, edging out the small family farm. This entire system is unfair and demoralizing. It disproportionately benefits big agribusiness at the expense of struggling family farms.

Third world countries also lose with these continued government manipulations. Agricultural subsidies lead to overproduction, which leads to foreign food aid as a form of dumping. By “dumping” government-created agricultural surpluses, agrarian economies are artificially kept in a constant state of economic depression. The would-be third world farmer cannot compete with “free” grain, thus he and his countrymen remain perpetual beggars rather than competitive producers. Also, by keeping food prices high, we keep more of our own citizens dependent on government food stamps, instead of paying fair market prices for food.

Free trade helps farmers and consumers much more than this convoluted system of subsidies, surpluses and central planning. Newly opened markets would create increased demand for what we produce. There is absolutely no reason we trade with China , yet not with Cuba . With energy and transportation prices as high as they are, opening up trade with a country as close as Cuba just makes sense. The recent power shift from Fidel Castro to his brother Raul, and the somewhat positive steps he has taken, provides an opportunity to lift the embargo.

Removing unreasonable, confiscatory tax policies would also make good farm policy. We need to permanently repeal the estate tax, which would again take a devastating 55% cut of family farms upon death of an owner. This tax will force the sale of many family farms, and further huge corporate agriculture.

Those who believe federal farm programs benefit independent farmers, should take note that after 70 years of this type of government intervention, small farms continue to struggle while large corporate farms control an ever-increasing share of the agricultural market. Subsidies for agribusiness should be stopped and the free market should be allowed to work. With commodity and food prices on the rise, Congress had an opportunity to scale down government controls and taxpayer funding of agriculture. Instead, despite the warning sent by an 18% approval rating, Congress stubbornly opted for more of the same.

Ron Paul is a republican member of Congress from Texas.

Congress is poised to pass the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) authorizing up to $50 million in unconstitutional foreign aid.  The bill passed out of the Foreign Affairs Committee with a bipartisan agreement to nearly double the President’s requested amount.

It is always distressing to see officials in our government reach across the aisle to disregard Constitutional limitations.

Much of this aid will run through government-to-government channels and will be vulnerable to corruption.  Some of the aid will be sent to faith-based organizations who, along with accepting government largess, will now be subject to governmental controls and will soon become more dependent on taxpayer funding than private funds.

If they accept the aid, they must be careful of the vague language regarding what types of programs they can run.  For example, the requirement that 33% of any funding received must go toward abstinence-only programs has been dropped and replaced with a 50% requirement toward behavior change.

Many humanitarian organizations are incensed by the politicized requirements placed on their work, and feel they are being forced to continue failed programs at the expense of more effective ones.

The obvious question remains:  Why are politicians in the United States deciding what is best for people in Africa ?  And why are taxpayers in the United States being forced to fund –for example – family planning facilities that perform abortions?

In fact, Afrobarometer, a leading source of data on public attitudes in Africa asked Africans what their main developmental concerns were.  They found that Africans are much more concerned about jobs, agriculture and basic infrastructure than they are about health issues like AIDS.

Africans should decide what is best for Africa .  American taxpayers should decide what charities deserve their money.

Forcibly taking money from the United States and sending it overseas is unconstitutional and immoral.

The energy that lobbying groups and celebrities expend for charitable causes here on the Hill could be better put to use actually addressing problems.  It is sadly symptomatic of the trend toward bigger government that instead of private fundraising efforts, people put their hand out to Congress.

It is unfortunate that some activists prefer funding taken by force, to donations freely given.

These efforts, though well-meaning, are misguided.  The truth is all the foreign aid in the world will not transform Africa into a thriving, healthy continent.  The economic growth of Africa depends on African entrepreneurs, liberalized trade policies, and political and economic freedom.

The best thing we could possibly do for Africa and for our own country, is to stop sending misguided aid, and stop protectionist trade practices that prevent African farmers and producers from competing in our markets.

Perhaps then Africa’s leaders would focus less on how to get aid out of the United States , and more on the economic vitality of their own countries.

What does this mean? Well, it’s quite simple. Under Fast Track, the president has the authority to ignore the will of Congress in negotiating new trade agreements.

We must remember that the US Constitution was written under the principle of “positive grant.” This means that the Federal Government is authorized to exercise only those powers that are specifically given to it by the Constitution. Nothing more and nothing less.

This was so important to the founders that they codified it in law as the 10th Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

There’s nothing, whatsoever, in the Constitution, which authorizes the president to create, conduct and/or conclude trade deals in this manner. This authority resides with Congress. Period.

Do I trust Congress to do a good job managing trade? Absolutely not. But, the potential for the abuse of power rises in proportion to how few the number of people have that power.

NAFTA is not free trade. It’s never been free trade, and this new push by G.W. isn’t free trade either.

Likewise, it’s not Constitutional. It never has been. And this exercise of raw power by an individual – like Bush is doing and Congress has allowed – has nothing to do with the system of government that was created by the founding fathers.