The House Agriculture Committee looked briefly at the President's budget proposals for moderate reductions in some types of farm subsidies, and came to a familiar conclusion. The committee likes the 2008 Farm Bill just the way it is, thank you very much, and is not interested in revisiting subsidies until the next farm bill is due in 2012.
This is unfortunate. Our farm subsidies are inconsistent and often wasteful uses of taxpayer money, and in a year when we ought to be trimming as much fat as possible from the budget, it is unfortunate that entrenched (and moneyed) interests are getting in the way of what were some very reasonable and moderate proposals by the White House.
Subsidies are here to stay for the next two years, and if mid-term elections go the way people are saying they will, I'd wager the tax-payer funded programs will get another vote of confidence in Congress in 2012.
More coverage here.
Showing posts with label Subsidies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Subsidies. Show all posts
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Two Good Articles
Heard a lot about HACCP lately? Curious what this now ubiquitous acronym is all about? There's a great breakdown of the history and philosophy of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point systems in this article on food safety and organics from Food Safety News.
And what about all the subsidy talk we've been hearing? Obama seems interested in cutting back on what one analyst has called "America’s largest corporate welfare program." But he wouldn't be the first commander-in-chief to be stifled by the legislature on this issue. Some good insight on Obama's odds in a piece from the United States Agricultural and Food Law and Policy Blog.
And what about all the subsidy talk we've been hearing? Obama seems interested in cutting back on what one analyst has called "America’s largest corporate welfare program." But he wouldn't be the first commander-in-chief to be stifled by the legislature on this issue. Some good insight on Obama's odds in a piece from the United States Agricultural and Food Law and Policy Blog.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
About Increasing Trade and Saving American Agriculture
I wrote a post recently in which I complained that USDA Secretary Vilsack's proposals for helping "American farmers" did a poor job of differentiating small farmers from big ag, and that some of the proposals seemed to be helping the small farmers while others (like the push for more exports) clearly favored the big guys. I wrote another post in which I talked about the danger of farm subsidies relative to honest pricing of goods.
An article over at Civil Eats goes into greater detail on these issues and discusses how they're interconnected. The author proposes not only that trade won't help America's small farmers, but that exporting the industrially produced and artificially cheap goods produced under our big ag, subsidy system is detrimental to foreign economies, limits the markets available to our goods, and even harms biodiversity worldwide.
Not an apolitical article, but raises interesting points, so worth reading.
UPDATE:
An additional article, with more info on agricultural policy's trade implications as well as links to more in depth info for the curious. Courtesy of the The US Agricultural and Food Law and Policy Blog.
An article over at Civil Eats goes into greater detail on these issues and discusses how they're interconnected. The author proposes not only that trade won't help America's small farmers, but that exporting the industrially produced and artificially cheap goods produced under our big ag, subsidy system is detrimental to foreign economies, limits the markets available to our goods, and even harms biodiversity worldwide.
Not an apolitical article, but raises interesting points, so worth reading.
UPDATE:
An additional article, with more info on agricultural policy's trade implications as well as links to more in depth info for the curious. Courtesy of the The US Agricultural and Food Law and Policy Blog.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
More on the Budget: Reducing Farm Subsidies
Even more coverage of the proposed budget and its food implications, in an article from the great blog over at Obama Foodorama. They provide a nice synopsis of some of the items not covered in our previous posts, including the planned reductions in farm subsidies.
Subsidies are enormously complicated, and I'm not in a position to say much about the specific proposed changes. What I will say is that while I understand that subsidies have historically been an important tool for supporting American farmers, they raise some questions that shouldn't be ignored. First, we need to ask whether the subsidy system as it exists is actually helping the American farmers who could most use that help: small family farms. Second, we need to consider the effect that subsidies can have on commodity prices. The reality is that subsidies artificially lower the price of goods like corn below natural market prices, and these artificially lower prices trickle down through the whole food system. Anything that has corn or corn products in it, or that has been fed corn, is artificially cheap in our supermarkets. This isn't to say we aren't paying for these items; we're just doing so in advance through our tax dollars, essentially all paying a deposit on these goods.
As someone who advocates as much free and informed choice as possible when it comes to food, I'm definitely wary of a system in which much of our food supply appears cheaper than it actually is, and in which we pay the difference on these products involuntarily out of our tax dollars.
Am I saying we should do away with subsidies? Like I said, I lack the expertise to confidently say anything of the sort. But I do think that subsidies can have some pretty anti-choice implications, and that these merit consideration by voters and policy makers.
Subsidies are enormously complicated, and I'm not in a position to say much about the specific proposed changes. What I will say is that while I understand that subsidies have historically been an important tool for supporting American farmers, they raise some questions that shouldn't be ignored. First, we need to ask whether the subsidy system as it exists is actually helping the American farmers who could most use that help: small family farms. Second, we need to consider the effect that subsidies can have on commodity prices. The reality is that subsidies artificially lower the price of goods like corn below natural market prices, and these artificially lower prices trickle down through the whole food system. Anything that has corn or corn products in it, or that has been fed corn, is artificially cheap in our supermarkets. This isn't to say we aren't paying for these items; we're just doing so in advance through our tax dollars, essentially all paying a deposit on these goods.
As someone who advocates as much free and informed choice as possible when it comes to food, I'm definitely wary of a system in which much of our food supply appears cheaper than it actually is, and in which we pay the difference on these products involuntarily out of our tax dollars.
Am I saying we should do away with subsidies? Like I said, I lack the expertise to confidently say anything of the sort. But I do think that subsidies can have some pretty anti-choice implications, and that these merit consideration by voters and policy makers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
