Thanks for trying, Earl!
As the NY Times article “Obama’s Farm Subsidy Cuts Meet Stiff Resistance” by David M. Herszenhorn notes (4/4/09, here):
In the House, Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of
Wisconsin, joined Representative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat of Oregon, in
offering an amendment to cap eligibility for farm subsidies at $250,000 in
family income. Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, offered a
similar amendment in the Senate. Both were defeated.
President Obama was trying to save $9.7 billion, as the
article further explains:
Among the audacious proposals in President Obama’s budget was a plan to save more than $9.7 billion over a decade by putting strict limits on farm subsidies that are disbursed regardless of market conditions or even whether the land is actively farmed.
But Mr. Obama’s grand ambitions have run into political reality.
The budget outlines approved by the House and Senate on Thursday night do not include limits on farm subsidies at all, and even champions of change say that if the president’s plan can be revived, it will have to be scaled back so significantly that the savings could amount
This is not the change I voted for.
Many of the farm subsidies are a total waste of taxpayer dollars. Lots of dollars! But the even larger issue, in my mind, is the impact such subsidies have on trade and foreign policy issues. Agricultural subsidies in developed countries, like the US and European countries, have the effect of artificially driving down the world prices of some agricultural products. This put farmers in many poor, developing countries at a disadvantage. So that as trade barriers (tariffs) on imported agricultural goods are reduced or eliminated, they are at a disadvantage. Our subsidized farm products are sold in their markets. They can't compete and are driven further into poverty. Such dynamics have been significant issues in our free trade agreements with Latin American countries. Africa and other developing parts of the globe also suffer. As an example, note the following about NAFTA and Mexican farmers (here)
On 1 January 2008, the governments of Mexico and the United States removed
all remaining cross-border tariffs on agricultural products between the two
countries. The move, required under the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), has been heavily criticized by agriculture interests on both sides of
the border. Mexican farmers have protested the loudest, arguing that without
the tariffs they cannot compete with their American counterparts given the
disproportionate subsidies that the United States provides to its farmers.
Our agricultural subsidies have had the effect of pushing poor Mexican farmers off their lands and further into poverty. The subsidies should end.
Keep the pressure on, Earl! The world is watching.
Comments