|
| I don't think I oppose the state wheat commissions or university research programs, rather their funding structure. I continue to be actively involved with their research on our own farm, donating time, seed, land, fertilizer, and equipment. It does, however bother me that public funding was established to sustain them and although it (public funding) is no longer doing the job it has not been abolished. Over time, this funding has become insufficient due to funding cuts yes , but also because of poor management of funds by many people in administration as well as research. I spent six years at a land grant university, there is plenty of waste....................plenty. There are a few, very good people who put in extra hours, and manage their program as many of us do our businesses, but they are the exception, but in general apathy, and an eye for new regulation is the road to tenure. The solution to this funding shortfall was to create new revenue streams; check-off dollars, royalties, partnerships with private companies, etc.. As producers began to fund research through these new avenues, the old revenue stream was not discontinued and returned to the producer via tax cuts, rather the money was just spent elsewhere.
It continues to happen far too often in govt., taxes are raised because of a perceived "need" that the majority agrees is worth funding. Over time, money is slowly siphoned away to fund other ventures that no one supports. Then comes the call for new funding to support the original "need" that we all agreed to support beforehand with the original tax increase.
I will also say that at times it has felt there was a lot of reactionary research taking place, rather than innovative research. A lot of time spent trying to prove that what innovative producers were already doing would work.
Edited by Matt NCOK 8/8/2008 00:02
| |
|
KS Wheat Assessment (tax) Going Up.
