By Richard Rider
December 20, 2006

You might be surprised who votes for and who against government-enforced high milk prices. Here's the data, thanks to some GREAT research from my friends at National Taxpayers Union.

Turns out the US Senate passed the onerous "Milk Regulatory Equity Act" (S 2120) with a voice vote in March, 2006, which keeps them off the record as to how they voted. However, Senator Dianne Feinstein doubtless enthusiastically supported the measure -- she co-sponsored it! Her office put out a puff piece press release lauding the passage of the act.

The press release (I have a copy) gloats over the passage of the bill. She says that this measure closes "the loophole that allows [presumably evil] out-of-state interests [not farmers or dairies -- INTERESTS!] to sell milk in California at prices less than they would be able to charge if their sales were in their own state."

Feinstein goes on to say that "This is a real win for California dairies." For our protected dairies, yes. They get windfall profits they could never earn in a free market. But for the California blue collar family buying milk on a tight budget -- definitely not.

Indeed, this bill was SPECIFICALLY targeted at Hein Hettinga, a dairy producer and processor in Arizona. Feinstein and her ilk are incensed that Hettinga has the audacity to ship cheaper milk to Southern California. For more on how they targeted this fellow, check out: http://tinyurl.com/yk9k2g.

Fortunately the House of Representatives did a roll call vote, so we get to see the villains' votes. Sadly, in spite of the fact that this bill's passage required a 2/3 vote (a procedural matter to suspend the rules and pass the measure quickly), it passed the House handily 285 to 128, with 22 listed as "not voting." The bill probably would have passed with a bit higher vote, as some of the "nay" votes doubtless were against bypassing the rules, rather than against the protectionist bill itself.

First, consider the supposedly free market GOP's vote: 162 in favor and 57 against, passing the measure with 74.0% of those voting. These meathead miscreants DESERVED to lose the House!

The Democrats actually did a bit better by milk drinkers, voting 122 to 71 in favor, supporting the bill with "only" 63.2%. Of course, these are the folks who care so much about the poor -- well, SOME of 'em care some of the time.

Probably the only difference between the two parties is in the percentage of office holders who are getting big bucks from the milk farmers and dairies. I suspect that a bit more of this legal bribe money is shuffled to the GOP whores than to the Democrat whores (in deference to P.J. O'Rourke, who titled his terrific book on our federal legislators "Parliament of Whores").

The full listing of who voted how can be found at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll069.xml.

In San Diego County, Darrel Issa, Susan Davis and Bob Filner each voted for the measure. Obviously they voted to support the thousands of their constituents employed by the huge dairy industry operations to be found in their districts (yeah, RIGHT!).

In a welcome change from his normal voting pattern, Duncan Hunter voted against the measure (he often has supported farm subsidies in the past). Brian Bilbray was not yet in office, so obviously he did not vote. Duke Cunningham resigned from office by then, so he didn't get to sell his vote on this one.

The sellout of consumers is particularly egregious as these incumbents CANNOT be unseated, thanks to the advantages of incumbency and the remarkably gerrymandered California districts. Of the 54 Congressional seats in California, in the last two elections, only one seat has changed hands from Democrat to GOP, or vice versa. So the political contributions directing these votes are irrelevant to their personal wellbeing and political longevity.

My theory is that the level of contributions (beyond a certain minimal point) is a scorekeeping game, seeing who can get the most. They also can buy leverage with that money by using it to support other candidates (well, assuming the "campaign reform" laws haven't precluded that yet).

Bottom line: NEVER vote for people who so heartlessly sell their support to the highest bidder -- poor people be damned.

Richard Rider is a tax expert and commentator on tax laws. Residing in San Diego, Rider has actively supported a variety of tax-cutting ballot initiatives, starting with Proposition 13. He has written ballot arguments against numerous city, county and state tax increase and bond initiatives.

Richard Rider is a tax expert and commentator on tax laws. Residing in San Diego, Rider has actively supported a variety of tax-cutting ballot initiatives, starting with Proposition 13. He has written ballot arguments against numerous city, county and state tax increase and bond initiatives.