The Peace Fair has been going on a lot longer than the Tucson Comic News, and we're proud to participate once again. Look for our table full of back issues and t-shirts, and stop by if you feel like chewing the fat over matters of mutual interest. One of these matters involves the Peace Calendar, which is produced by the same folks who bring you the Peace Fair. You may have noticed that the Calendar was missing last month-and this month, too.

As noted in the December Peace Calendar, and many times before, the Peace Calendar was suffering from a lack of volunteers. Due to the lack of response to their pleas, they were forced to suspend publication for the first time in 14 years (summers excepted). It takes both time and money to produce those monthly listings, and both were in increasingly short supply. If you can offer energy in either form, call Bruce Phillips of the Tucson Peace Center at 888-3498.

Of course, it was an act of misguided optimism for me to have predicted in last month's Rant that some sort of denoument to the budget stalemate would have ocurred by now. And again, I'm glad I was wrong in predicting that the president would eventually cave in. It seems that the GOP will continue to play chicken with him for the next nine months, figuring that this will somehow endear them to the voting public. That, of course, remains to be seen.

One prediction I will stick by is that neither party is liable to talk much about welfare for the rich, even as they argue over balancing the budget on the backs of the poor. And as promised, in an effort to fill that vacuum in the public discourse, the Comic News will be presenting, for the next several months, excerpts from my upcoming book, Getting the Rich Off Welfare, to be published this fall by Odonian Press:

Depending on how you define your terms, we spend two to three times as much on welfare for the rich as we do on welfare for the poor. Defining your terms, of course, is crucial. Some will argue that many of the subsidies and tax breaks discussed below benefit society as a whole, as well as lining the pockets of the rich. We taxpayers ought to be arguing about this a great deal more than we have in the past.

Backers of various corporate welfare programs argue that the wealth is recirculated back into the economy. Of course, the same is true of welfare programs for the poor, many of which benefit landlords and supermarkets. But many social welfare programs, such as Head Start, pay for themselves many times over in future savings on health care, prisons and AFDC payments. In contrast, much of the corporate gravy train pays for industries that pollute our air, water and soil-so that we end up paying for them twice.

Subsidizing certain businesses not only harms the competitors who are not subsidized; many of whom will be motivated to move abroad; but it hurts the subsidy recipient as well, stifling incentives for competition and innovation. It also increases the chances of corruption, both in business and in government. Many of the programs that now function as corporate welfare were started with the best of intentions, but now serve a constituency far different from the original target. And many corporate subsidies conflict with other federal programs intended to do just the opposite-as with Interior Department irrigation subsidies to farmers who are paid by the Agriculture Department not to grow.

Fortunately, awareness of these issues is beginning to increase. Since Labor Secretary Robert Reich called for “ending corporate welfare as we know it” in November 1994, many organizations have drawn up reports on government spending for the rich. These estimates come from left-wing groups like Common Cause ($104 billion a year) and the Center for the Study of Responsive Law ($167 billion a year), as well as centrist groups like the Progressive Policy Institute ($265 billion over five years), and right-wing think tanks like the Cato Institute ($85 billion a year).

However, you won't hear much about welfare for the rich from our politicians-on either the left or the right. Reich's proposal has not been embraced by the rest of the Clinton Administration, and the GOP-dominated Congress has mostly ignored those few in their ranks who have spoken out on the idea (on the contrary, many handouts have been increased). Current plans to balance the federal budget by 2002 include a 1% cut in corporate welfare-and about ten times that much in cuts to social welfare programs. From fiscal 1996 to 2002, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, over $2.5 trillion will be spent on welfare for the rich.

Any politician willing to take on the “wealthfare” monolith would have a potent campaign theme; and would likely face a drying up of traditional sources of campaign funding. So it's up to the rest of us to try and make a stink about it. Hopefully this book will help to do just that. In the back, the Resources section will describe groups who are working to end these abuses. Unless we're able to do so, we're likely to end up a meaner and more polarized society-and more of your tax dollars will be going to those who need them least.

Agribusiness Subsidies

Every year the US Treasury hands out up to $20 billion in agricultural price supports and other aid to farmers. However, the term “farmer” is defined rather loosely. Over the last decade, more than $1.8 billion has been doled out to “farmers” in urban zipcodes. Only 10% of the total agricultural subsidy goes to needy farmers, while over 2/3 goes to the richest 15%. Most family farms have long since been squeezed out of the market, but today the average fulltime “farmer” is worth $700,000, ten times the net worth of average householder.

The vast majority of farm subsidies go to huge agribusiness conglomerates, who disguise their massive land holdings into networks of corporations and trusts to get around the 960-acre limit for taxpayer-funded irrigation water. Not only does such largess encourage agribiz firms to waste water-depleting the nation's watersheds, as well as its treasury-but many subsidized irrigators turn around and sell their excess water at a profit, sometimes to local governments! It's estimated that you spend over $3 billion a year on irrigation projects, public dams, and below-market water sales to farmers. You also spend another $700 million annually on the Inland Water Way System, to help barge companies in getting all this subsidized produce to market.

Sure, you get cheaper food prices in the deal, but it's not always a bargain. Diverting productive salmon streams to grow crops in the desert may be great for fast-food outlets and the corporate farmers who supply them, but it's hell on the fishermen and recreational workers, whose unemployment insurance is also part of the cost of your cheaper meal. It's not always cheaper, either. USDA price supports on sugar, combined with import quotas against cheaper foreign supplies, brought in a sweet $1.4 billion extra to sugar manufacturers.

Subsidizing the growth of wheat, corn and rice may enhance your food budget, but forking over the lion's share to huge factory farms encourages the use of petrochemical fertilizers and toxic pesticides. Not only do they end up on your plate, they end up in your water supply-either that, or you pay to have them removed. And it's not only nutritious grains you're paying for, either. Every year US taxpayers fork over millions of dollars to the growers of tobacco, a legal drug that kills a thousand Americans every day

Many Americans, for health reasons, are cutting back on meat, eggs and dairy products. But all Americans, whatever their diet, help to pay for these products, as well as the Medicare and Medicaid costs of those who have overconsumed them. Livestock breeders and dairy producers get special tax exemptions for selling their stock. Cattle ranchers graze ther herds on public lands at a fraction of the market value; and end up trampling out native plants and grasses, fouling local streams and contributing to erosion. Subsidizing huge factory farms not only crowds out smaller and more diversified operations, but contributes to massive sewage spills; yet another example of the taxpayer paying for it at both ends.

And once again, these subsidies are going out disproportionately to the very rich. 75% of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) grazing land is controlled by less than 10% of the leaseholders. And while the BLM took in $29 million from those leases in 1994, they spent $105 million to manage those same lands. Factor in the environmental costs, and grazing programs cost you over $1.4 billion from 1987-93.

Mining Subsidies

Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit was visibly angry. He was about to consummate what he called “ a massive ripoff of the taxpayers,” but said he had no choice, because his hands were tied by the Mining Law of 1872. The best he could do was publicize this archaic and unjust subsidy by holding a news conference with a giant giftwrapped present as he signed away federal lands holding millions of dollars worth of mineral rights-for $5.00 an acre!

The Mining Law of 1872 has been called the “granddaddy of all subsidies.” Certainly there were massive ripoffs of the taxpayers before this one, but none have survived so long. Since it was signed by President Grant, in an effort to encourage settlement of the West, this law has handed out nearly $240 billion in mineral rights, and some 3.2 million acres of land.

Under this law, anybody, including foreign corporations, can seek precious metals on your public lands and file a claim for their extraction. The US governement has collected exactly zero dollars in royalties on the $240 billion worth of extractions over the last 124 years. Currently some $2 to 4 billion in minerals are pulled out of public lands every year. A conservative estimate is that an 8% royalty rate would pull in at least $1 billion over the next five years.

Besides royalty-free mining, the Law of '72 allows mining companies to purchase 20-acre tracts of public land at $5.00 an acre-the 1872 price. An area the size of Connecticut has been parcelled out at these prices since the Grant Administration. In Montana, the Chevron and Manville corporations are looking to lay their hands on about $4 billion worth of platinum and palladium, for which they propose to pay Uncle Sam about $10,000.

Another way the Law of '72 rips you off is that the mining companies are not required to clean up after themselves once they've pulled the loot out of your land. Right now you're looking at cleanup costs of $32 to $72 billion for abandoned mines on public lands.

Of course, this isn't the only law that makes life easier for mining corporations at your expense. They currently enjoy a number of comfortable tax write-offs. The Reclamation Deduction allows mining companies to begin deducting the eventual closing costs of the mine as soon as it is opened, instead of when those costs really occur. This amounts to an interest-free loan to them from you and the other taxpayers. Of course, there is no requirement that the monies thus saved by the mining companies be set aside in a trust fund for the eventual reclamation. Eliminating this deduction would save the treasury $200 million over the next five years.

The Exploration and Development Write-off allows mining corporations to deduct the (projected) costs of exploration for certain minerals in the first year of mining, rather than over the life of the mine. This means that we taxpayers assume the risks associated with exploration, rather than the mining company. Canceling this write-off would save $675 million over the next five years.

And then there's the Percentage Depletion Allowance, another ancient law still on the books. The mining companies successfully argued that their mines are worth less every day that minerals are extracted from them, so they ought to be able to deduct those losses. These deductions are codified in fixed allowances assigned to various substances. It turns out that the most toxic substances, like lead, mercury and asbestos, are also the most heavily subsidized. These allowances often bear little resmblance to the true market price of the extracted mineral, so that the mining companies end up making more money from the write-off than they have invested in the mine. Which means you're investing more in their mine than they are. Cancelling this allowance would save taxpayers a whopping $2.8 billion over five years.

Automobile Subsdies

Americans have long had a love/hate affair with the automobile. Every car owner loves the freedom and mobility of a personal vehicle. What everyone hates, though, is other people's cars.And with good reason. Not only do they get in the way of your commute, but they contribute 25% of the gasses leading to global warming. The oil, gas and chemical runoff from roads is equal to 21 Exxon Valdez spills a year. Automobiles kill nearly as many Americans every year (50,000) as the entire Vietnam War; and the annual bill for injuries and related expenses runs to some $400 billion. Respiratory diseases due to auto exhaust kill 120,000 Americans prematurely every year, with medical bills stretching to over $100 billion. Another $100 billion goes down the drain annually in crop losses and property damage due to auto pollution.

These costs, of course, are paid by auto users and nonusers alike. If every car were priced to reflect its true cost to society over a ten-year lifespan, they would cost over $200,000 apiece. Needless to say, US gasoline taxes; the lowest in the industrialized world) and DMV fees don't begin to cover those costs.The true costs of the automobile are being subsidized by present and future generations of taxpayers.

The combined support of local, state and federal governments for automobile use runs to over $300 billion a year; or nearly 100 times the amount spent on public transport. This includes some $71 billion in road construction and maintainence funds, and $85 billion in subsidies and tax breaks for parking lots. According to the Media Foundation, the true social cost of the automobile, adding government gas and auto subsidies to pollution-related disease, auto injuries, road construction and maintainence, and lost work-time due to congestion, is $1.4 trillion a year.

The huge government subsidies, and the masking of the true cost of the automobile, encourage car owners to use their vehicles far more than they would if they had to bear more of the cost. They also encourage the public to rely on the automobile more than other, less heavily subsidized transportation systems. Republican budget-cutters like to decry the amount of public funds spent on Amtrak and other mass transit systems. The fact is that riders on these systems pay much more towards their cost than auto users do-and at much less cost to society.

Of course, subsidizing the automobile is also a huge subsidy to the oil companies who supply the fuel to run them, as well as to the mining companies who supply the raw material for the production of one new car every second, and the construction companies who have paved over 70,000 square miles of the North American continent. It's also been a great boon to the real estate industry, which benefitted from the vast tracts of land opened up by the Interstate Highway System.

This cozy setup didn't just happen by accident. It was the result of collusion and conspiracy-as in criminal conspiracy. In 1949, when the skies over the nation's cities were still relatively clear, a consortium including General Motors, Standard Oil and Firestone Tires was indicted and convicted for conspiring to buy up and destroy over 100 electric trolley sytems in 45 US cities. The companies were fined $5000 each, while the individuals who organized the scheme were fined exactly one dollar each. This slap on the wrist allowed the automobile to go on to the hegemony it maintains today.