Lessons for Anna Paulina Luna (on farm policy)

Why would a Florida Republican stand up for an overbearing California farm rule?

By Kimberley A. Strassel. Excerpt:

"Where to start unpacking? Several GOP offices tried to do just that in the forum. One office began by (politely) setting Ms. Luna’s office straight on basic facts: Under this fix, California can still regulate its own agricultural practices. Also, the Supreme Court in its Proposition 12 decision said several times that Congress has “considerable power to regulate interstate commerce and preempt contrary state laws.”

That office then patiently provided a refresher in Federalism 101, explaining why California’s initiative is the opposite of states’ rights, since it doesn’t concern itself with only California. It imposes its mandate on 49 other states, none of whose citizens had any vote, or any recourse, through California’s process. They might have added that California has been using this trick—flexing its markets to impose national rule, under the perversion of “states’ rights”—with increasing boldness for decades. Republicans are supposed to understand such basic stuff.

The same office also tried to impart basic economics. It noted that the producers most able to swallow California’s mandate costs are giant concerns, like “Chinese-owned Smithfield.” Those hardest hit are U.S. farms and ranches, which are being pushed out of the market. It provided Ms. Luna’s office with U.S. Department of Agriculture data, estimating that the cost for pork producers of complying is about $3,500 to $4,500 a sow, one reason 12% of small pork operations have exited since Proposition 12. It further noted the demonstrated rise in consumer prices (especially in California) since the initiative’s passage.

Ms. Luna’s staffer said he “appreciated” the “viewpoints”—before banging on anew about “state authority.” California voters have a right to decide what “consumer” products are sold in their state. They should have “choice.” Another catchy word, if again totally backward, since California eliminated everyone’s “choice”—and unnecessarily. As one GOP office noted, there is an easier, freer, less costly answer. California consumers can exercise choice via what they buy. Under Congress’s new fix, morally superior Californians are free to choose to buy only costly, grass-fed California-produced chops, leaving on the shelves all the cheaper, yummier pork for the hoi polloi."