The government should eliminate all agricultural programs because they do not benefit consumers. Agree? Disagree? Why? Why not?I do not think that the government should eliminate all agricultural programs. These programs were proposed and put in motion for particular purposes. Many lawmakers worked on them. They assessed needs, researched solutions, assessed solutions, and implemented the solution. If there are no apparent need and beneficial solutions, these programs would have been terminated while they are being passed through the government. While it is true that some programs put in motion years ago have outlived their usefulness, there is no reason why the government should eliminate all agricultural programs. There are many reasons why we should keep agricultural programs. I will explain these reasons in the next few paragraphs.Since the market crash of the 1930’s the “government intervention in food and agriculture has become the rule rather than the exception.” From that disaster we learned that we could not rely on the economy to steer itself. The government must intervene and help the economy, as well as its citizens, survive and grow. Alan Greenspan’s effect on the economy perfectly illustrates the economy’s need for government intervention. On a smaller scale, United States agricultural programs help make the lives of farmers and consumers easier. To maintain and support a strong economy the United States must “insure adequate food supplies, protect and preserve small-scale farms, reduce price instability, and minimize dependence on imports.” Specifically, United States agricultural programs help farmers remain in business and grow....
