PoliBlog has a piece where he dismisses farm subsidies as a waste of money and that farms should be allowed to die if they aren't profitable. Spurred by
this recent article where the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture talked of cuts to the subsidies to reduce the deficit, I'll throw my hat in the ring.
 |
Northampton Market Square
Food Queue For English Tomatoes In WWII |
This is one case where I see government spending as a boon. The less than 1% of our federal budget we spend on farm subsidies is a very cheap insurance policy against what happened to Britain in World War II. With the English relying on imports for their food to feed their population, they were reduced to near starvation and massive rationing when the external sources were cut off.
This is really not an economic issue, but more of a homeland security issue. If we allow enough farms to go out of business that we can't adequately feed our population in the case of some world changing event, we are going to have some serious problems. I personally don't look forward to food rationing or being robbed for my can of peas by groups of starving thugs because we didn't want to spend the money necessary to keep a decent supply of our own.
Another bone of contention I have with it is that it can be used as an extortion tool. Tariffs can be manipulated by other countries or demanded eliminated in other industries by threat of "raising our food costs". By giving this industry to foreign interests we are really setting ourselves up for some serious risk in the future.
As most know I'm a Conservative, but in this case I have to side with a government supported industry because the reward of being prepared far outweighs the risks.
Now it's your turn. Tell me where I'm wrong.
Well, for one thing you are assuming that without the subsidies we would have a significant diminishment of the food supply, yet that would not be the case.
Second, cutting off subsidies would hardly result in a shift in our source of food. It isn't as if agribusiness in the US is so dependent on subsidies that they would all fold up if the federal money stopped flowing.
Third, England is a tiny island, the US is a huge territory with mucho land for cultivation and production. It simply isn't comparable (not to mention that our abiity to produce food has increased radically since WWII in general).
Really: it is an unnecessary intrusion into the market and a waste of tax dollars.
Posted by: Steven Taylor at
March 18, 2005 05:34 AM
You both have good arugments, but I believe there's a hidden issue here.
Part of the reason farmers are being squeezed out of business is companies like ConAgra. These giant food companies have been slowly, quietly and surely taking over privately owned farms for years through the use of "Eminent Domain" laws. At the same time, they've negotiated back-door water rights deals that put private farmers and even entire cities at their mercy. With these acquisitions, they get to set the price of both water supplies as well as agricultural products.
From where I sit, removing these farm subsidies from private farmers will only allow these big companies to come in, take the land and create a monopoly market hidden from public view. Not to mention the expansion of genetically modified food products.
David Eccles
Posted by: deccles at
March 18, 2005 10:10 AM
As far as my use of England it was a simple example of the dangers involved with not having the ability for self preservation.
While I agree with some of your arguments Steven, I still feel there needs to be farm subsidies.
In the inerests of full disclosure I have no ties to the farm industry, nor have I ever been a farmer. So my interests are not of a personally beneficial nature other than being able to buy a tomatoe if our shipping industry or food distribution network is disrupted.
There is no excuse not to be prepared within reason and 1% is a small amount I'm willing to pay for that security.
Posted by: Digger at
March 19, 2005 01:56 AM
