Approaching the turn of spring and summer, wheat grows well in various places, but at the most, an abnormal phenomenon has appeared in Henan, Hebei and other major grain-producing provinces. Many enterprises buy wheat seedlings at high prices in grain-producing areas and intend to use them for feed production. Many farmers make a comparison: if they sell silage, they can earn a net income of 2,100 yuan per mu, but if they wait until the wheat is ripe to harvest and then sell it, the gross income per mu does not exceed 1,500 yuan. In addition to the cost of manpower, material resources and maintenance, the income earned per mu of land is very little, because of this, many farmers tend to sell green seedlings at this time, not only can make a lot of money, but also can greatly save manpower, material and financial resources, save their own harvesting, loading and transportation trouble, but also can avoid some potential natural risks.
In view of this, many experts stood up and began to shout: Peasants have no right to "cut green and destroy grain" and sell silage, so they will ruin food security by selling an extra 1,800 per mu of land! In the face of the anxiety of some experts, many peasants smiled indifferently: Experts have no right to dictate to peasants, just do your own work well. In fact, many people can clearly see that the reason why this abnormal phenomenon occurs has a profound background and historical reasons. The words of experts have become a kind of negative teaching material in this day and age, and we will not say much about it. In fact, in the hearts of the peasants, grain is the foundation of their own lives, do you think the peasants are willing to cut the green and destroy the grain? There is no way, they also have to make a decision after weighing all kinds of pros and cons.
Some experts, whose income exceeds that of farmers by thousands of times, sit in their offices every day, enjoying the various benefits brought by their titles, such as high temperature subsidies in summer and heating subsidies in winter, and eating cheap food provided by farmers, but they never think of fighting for some benefits for farmers. As for the peasants living on the subsistence line, when they are under the scorching sun on their heads, regardless of the wind and rain, and drag their sick bodies to work in the fields, have these experts ever thought of their situation? Compared with some people who sit in the office blowing air conditioners, who needs high temperature subsidies and heating subsidies more? In the rural areas, unless you can't move, there is no such thing as retirement, so we can often see 80 or 90 years old people dragging their weak bodies to work in the fields. And where are those experts and executives after retirement? Are they either busy traveling around the country, or they are looking for fun, and they are also the builders of the country, why is there such a big difference in treatment?
In fact, in the final analysis, food security is a national security and a national strategy. The issue of food security is not only known to experts, but also to the common people. However, in front of food security, the common people think that it is more important to be able to survive, and only by being able to live well can they talk about food security and contribute to the country. If even survival has become a problem, what kind of food security and national security can we talk about? For the peasants, grain is like their own children; if it were not for the problem of livelihood and if it were not for the compulsion of a difficult life, the common people would not be willing to cut the green and destroy the grain, and they would be more willing to see the heavy ears of wheat hanging on the pole and enjoy the joy of a bumper harvest. However, this is not the case, many farmers have been bent over by education, medical care, and housing, and they also have to face all kinds of miscellaneous expenses in life, water, electricity, gas and various expenses need to be paid, and any expenses that are not paid in time will be subject to all kinds of difficulties. Even some commercial insurance should be voluntary, but the village cadres kept urging it, turning this kind of voluntary into compulsory voluntariness.
In this case, whether it's for the farmer, or for anybody else, is it a desire to make as much as you can? I guess that's true for everybody. For example, we are migrant workers in the city, who work overtime every day, not only have little time to rest, but also have no guarantee to eat, and many times they are solved by a pack of instant noodles or fast food. It is estimated that if the expert sees it, he will say: This is not good, it is unhealthy to eat like this, and this rhythm of life is even more unhealthy. But what to do? Who will help them provide for their families? Who will help them take care of their elderly parents and their young children who are waiting to be fed at home? Who doesn't want to be able to find a clean place to eat a hot meal quietly, everyone knows that such a lifestyle is unhealthy, but they have a choice?
Let's look at it from another angle, for many peasants, when they open their eyes, they have to think about where the tuition fees will come from when their children go to school; who will pay for the medical expenses when the elderly are sick; who will pay for the bride price and house expenses when their children are getting married; where will the money come from. Except for some young and strong people who go out to work to earn some money, the state will not pay money on a monthly basis, but can only dig money out of the soil. As I mentioned in my previous article, the income of farmers from farming is actually extremely meager, and there is almost no surplus except for costs. In the face of such a good thing as the purchase of silage, which requires a lot of manpower, material and financial resources to be invested in the later stage, and can avoid some natural disasters and make a steady profit, who would refuse it? If the expert is a farmer, will the expert refuse? Personally, I think absolutely not.
Therefore, these experts are actually a manifestation of standing and talking without back pain. If we want to truly put an end to this kind of situation of cutting green and destroying grain and endangering national security, it is actually very easy to handle. In my opinion, we can do a good job in this area through four aspects, which will not only help the country's food security, but also increase peasants' incomes, and not only eliminate this phenomenon, but also promote social harmony.
The first is to raise the price of grain purchases
Some people say that grain prices have a bearing on national stability, and that grain prices must not be raised in order to ensure the competitiveness of mainland grain in the world grain market. In fact, I personally think that this sentence is just two words: fart! and it is a big stinky fart. We can see that there is such a phenomenon in many enterprises, and the state has carried out various subsidies to enterprises in order to enhance their competitiveness. Therefore, we can see that the price of many goods abroad is much lower than that at home, and we can understand this. Another example, for example, although the price of agricultural products in the United States is very low, the price of state purchase is not low, and many American farmers are given various welfare benefits. In today's era, we learn from the West in many aspects, but why don't we learn from the West when it comes to the interests of the peasants?
As far as peasants who grow grain are concerned, raising the purchase price of grain does not mean that the price of grain in the market must be raised. We can increase grain prices in disguise by increasing subsidies for growing grain. That is to say, if you plant an acre of land and sell 1,000 catties of grain, according to the standard of one pound and one yuan, if you sell it for 1,000 yuan, I will give you three or even five times the subsidy according to your actual income from selling grain, that is, 3,000 to 5,000 yuan through agricultural subsidies. Isn't it okay to let these prices not be reflected in the grain? In fact, many of our enterprises subsidize in this way. Why can't it be applied to agriculture and peasants? If such a policy is implemented, which peasant will cut the green and destroy the grain? I guess there will no longer exist.
The second is to provide comprehensive agricultural services
I believe you still remember the incident of those harvesters being blocked on the highway during the heavy rain in Henan last year, and under that circumstances, is food security not important? Obviously, it is not that it is not unimportant, but that our agricultural service system and mechanism are not perfect enough. That is to say, the relevant departments only know how to perform their duties and mechanically implement some regulations, but they do not really put food security in their hearts, let alone the overall awareness of serving agriculture. Why have the prices of pesticides, fertilizers, and agricultural machinery been rising over the years, but we can't see that food prices have been rising. Such a phenomenon has not only led to higher and higher agricultural production costs, but has also seriously dealt a blow to the peasants' enthusiasm for growing grain; will these phenomena not endanger food security? Obviously, it has a great impact on food security, and quite a number of peasants have turned their land for growing grain into breeding farms, and the land for growing grain into cash crops and vegetable greenhouses.
In fact, the key problem is that due to the continuous increase in the price of agricultural services, many farmers do not make money from growing grain, or even lose money. Under such circumstances, finding another way out has become the most natural choice for the peasants, and in fact, the same is true for some incidents of cutting green and destroying grain. If we can raise the level of agricultural services, strictly limit the price increase of agriculture-related industries, and provide peasants with cheaper costs for growing grain; if we can provide peasants with a wider range of intimate services and provide more convenient services in seeds, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, agricultural machinery, as well as production, maintenance, harvesting, and transportation, so that peasants can have a sense of gain and accomplishment in growing grain, we will certainly greatly enhance peasants' enthusiasm for growing grain.
The third is to give better treatment to peasants
The same Chinese, the same service for the country, although the division of labor is different, but the role should not be underestimated. Scientists contribute to the development of science and technology, doctors contribute to health, soldiers contribute to national defense, police officers contribute to social order, and peasants contribute to ensuring the bottom line of national survival. Society is a big machine, and every position and occupation is a screw, which does not say who has contributed more and whose contribution is small, but the division of labor is different. However, despite this, although everyone contributes to the country, the treatment in real life is very different. As far as the peasants are concerned, apart from the poor middle peasants or poor peasants a few decades ago, it is worth mentioning, and when it comes to peasants now, the impression in society is either that they are unqualified and uncivilized, or that they are the representative of poverty and backwardness. Is this situation fair to some farmers who have worked hard all their lives to make great contributions to the country's food cause?
Therefore, if we want to fundamentally change this phenomenon, we can only give better treatment to the peasant group. For example, the retirement benefits that are often mentioned on the Internet, I personally think it's time to think about it. Farmers are also Chinese, they have worked hard all their lives, and after retirement, they should also enjoy the dividends brought by the country's development, and they should also enjoy their old age. For retirement, it is not a treatment in itself to show status, but a means to ensure people's old age, and there should be no difference. On this basis, I suggest that the standard should be unified across the country and determined according to the different living standards in different places. For example, in some large and medium-sized cities, the living consumption level can be appropriately raised, and in the vicinity of some small cities, the living consumption level can be lowered, with 5,000 yuan as the benchmark, linked to the salary of the current civil servant, and carried out upward and downward adjustments, so as to truly achieve equality for everyone in the socialist country, eliminate the gap between the rich and the poor in society, and increase the happiness index of peasants.
In addition, some so-called "high-level wards" and "special areas for retired cadres", as well as discrimination in airports, waiting rooms, parks and related cultural facilities should be abolished. As a building force of the country, peasants should enjoy the same treatment as all other people, and should not be treated differently because of their status and status. All hospitals, scenic spots and related entertainment venues for the elderly, transportation means of transportation, and the elderly over 70 years old are free of charge. Even if the mainland can't do free medical care for all now, it can give appropriate discounts to people over 70 years old, and I personally think that this can be done, but it's just a matter of whether you want to do it. Therefore, these experts only look at the problem of peasants cutting green and destroying grain from their own perspective, and to put it bluntly, if not simply stupid, then simply bad. Forget it, don't write it, I accidentally pulled too much, and it delayed everyone's precious time!