Farm Subsidies: More Obsolete Than Your Grandpa’s Tractor
September 12th, 2007 by Matt HittleHere in South Dakota, folks don’t like government intervention in their lives. That is, unless we’re discussing farm subsidies. People out here go crazy over this free cash from Uncle Sam, and any assertion against it is booed.
In an article for RealClearPolitics, Robert Samuelson discusses the history of federal farm subsidies, and the massive money pit they have become.
In the 37 years since 1970, the federal government has spent $578 billion on farm subsidies. Samuelson says that, even though incredible amounts are spent on farming, its not doing much good:
Food would be produced without subsidies. Roughly 90 percent of commodity payments go to farmers raising grains (wheat, corn), soybeans, cotton and rice; these products represent about a fifth of farm cash receipts. Meanwhile, meat, vegetable and fruit producers get no direct subsidies. Does anyone truly think that, without subsidies, Iowa’s cornfields and Kansas’s wheat fields would go fallow?
When I bring up the issue of farm subsidies, most of my neighbors are flabbergasted that an Iowan living in South Dakota could be against them. Subsidies keep people afloat, they say. Well…that’s not exactly true, it seems. Samuelson explains the progression of the agriculture industry in relation to farm subsidies:
Well, maybe farm subsidies “saved” the family farm? Not exactly. Farm subsidies date to the Great Depression. In 1932, there were 6.7 million farms, and the farm population was 25 percent of the nation’s total. By 2002, the number of farms had dwindled to 2.1 million, and the farm population was about 2 percent of the total. More mechanization, better seeds and cultivation practices have enabled fewer, bigger farms to produce more food.
Of course, in the end, the unnecessary government intervention ruins the party for everyone:
Government has a legitimate role in agriculture to ensure food safety, oversee the environment, and promote research and development. But most of today’s farm programs are simply income transfers from consumers and taxpayers to farmers. Aside from their costs, these programs actually damage American interests. Global trade negotiations are stalled in part because the United States and other countries won’t end farm subsidies and protections. The irony is that, as the world’s largest food exporter, the United States would be better off if all subsidies vanished, though some American producers (sugar, cotton) might suffer.
They’re going to hate me for this one in South Dakota.
September 13th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Repealing all taxes and replacing them with a single tax for each level of government would remove these taxes from the price paid for everything and eliminate the reason for subsidies which are paid after taking large amounts of tax money from farmers.
September 15th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Farm subsidies: do you think people by the name of Grassley (Senator) need farm subsidies? Do you think people with the name of Rockefeller need subsidies? There are quite a few “gentlemen farmers” out there getting hundreds of thousands of tax dollars in farm subsidies. It’s enough to make a taxpayer want to be able to vote in every state where this takes place. Then again, a voter would need to be quite ghostly to do that.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Hottest Motorcycle Chicks…
Hottest Motorcycle Chicks…