The Bethie Bee

Maybe I just don’t understand the British mentality, but continuing the whole royal family thing has never quite made sense to me…I know this isn’t new, but an article entitled “Welfare Queen” in last week’s World Magazine renewed my distaste for the Royal Family.

It seems that Queen Elizabeth and her son Prince Charles “received more than $1.7 million in farm subsidies from the European Union over the past two years for farming done on their estates.” Look, I’m not a big fan of farm subsidies in the United States or abroad, but if they’re going to exist, shouldn’t they at least go to struggling farmers, not royalty worth hundreds of millions?

Maybe I’m just picking on Europe here, farm subsidies here in the United States aren’t so great either, according to the article

U.S. hands are hardly clean, either. Most U.S. farm subsidies also go to a small percentage of farmers who earn more than $250,000 a year (see “Cotton fleece,” March 12, 2005), and subsidies have famously benefited multimillionaires like David Rockefeller, media mogul Ted Turner, and former NBA star Scottie Pippen. Wealthy U.S. sugar growers nearly derailed a trade agreement with Central American nations earlier this year, and the Senate Agriculture Committee undercut U.S. negotiators in Hong Kong earlier this month by endorsing a plan to extend U.S. subsidies until 2011.

How do we keep allowing this to happen? Well, according to the article,

In all Western countries, farm subsidies survive through a classic example of political bait and switch. The subsidies are sold to voters as a way to help struggling family farmers, the romantic rural yeomen of the popular imagination. But then when Congress or parliaments enact the subsidies, the lion’s share goes to wealthy landholders and corporate interests.

It’s not that I’m saying the “romantic rural yeomen” should be receiving subsidies, either. I’m also not opposed to wealthy landholders and corporations. I’m simply showing yet another problem that occurs when the government starts poking around places is doesn’t belong.

Apparently not always…as I was proud to see, my Alma Mater, Grove City College, was listed as one of America’s Top Ten Conservative Colleges by The Young America’s Foundation. An article on Grove City’s website explained the criteria for choosing the colleges:

According to the Foundation, “Many conservative students seek alternatives in higher education, but they may not be fully aware of institutions that fit these criteria. The 2005-2006 ‘Top Ten Conservative College’ list features 10 institutions that proclaim, through their mission and programs, a dedication to discovering, maintaining and strengthening the conservative values of their students.”

The listed colleges offer an alternative to the liberal status quo, because they allow and encourage conservative students to explore conservative ideas and authors. Additionally, the colleges offer coursework and scholarship in conservative thought and emphasize principles of smaller government, strong national defense, free enterprise, and traditional values.

As a Christian College, with a traditional curriculum, and one of only two colleges in the country not to accept federal financial aid (Grove City vs. Bell), it is not surprising that Grove City made the list.

Besides Grove City, Hillsdale College, Franciscan University, Indiana Wesleyan University, Thomas Aquinas College, College of the Ozarks, Liberty University, Patrick Henry College, Christendom College and Harding University were also listed.

See the full article here.