New at Reason

Steve Chapman voyages into the twilight zone of agricultural handouts.

Comments

JasonL | October 25, 2007, 8:59am | #

The Farm Bill is a celebration of Public Choice every 5 years. Everyone knows it is a bad idea, but it is an irresistable pander. The process that births this creature infects every law congress passes.

Ironchef | October 25, 2007, 9:04am | #

It's the third "third rail" of American politics.

For a model of no farm subsudies - look at New Zealand, who went cold turkey on farm support some time ago.

JasonL | October 25, 2007, 9:13am | #

"For a model of no farm subsudies - look at New Zealand, who went cold turkey on farm support some time ago."

Yeah, but look at them now, not a sheep to be found anywhere ... /snark

Bill Pope | October 25, 2007, 9:27am | #

Not only is the American taxpayer the victim here, but more tragically farmers in developing countries who have been forced off their land because they cannot compete with subsidized produce from developed nations. These subsidies continue even under "free trade" agreements. The most pertinent example is the two million Mexican farmers who have been displaced, many of whom are now working illegally in the US.

Reinmoose | October 25, 2007, 9:35am | #

"For most commodities (such as fruits and vegetables, hay, meat products, ornamentals), there is little government involvement or income support," report economists Bruce Gardner of the University of Maryland and Daniel Sumner of the University of California at Davis

Uh huh. None of that subsidized corn gets fed to livestock. No way!

R C Dean | October 25, 2007, 9:50am | #

"For most commodities (such as fruits and vegetables, hay, meat products, ornamentals), there is little government involvement or income support,"

So WTF are those billions being spent on?

barry payne - economist | October 25, 2007, 10:38am | #

MYTH OF LOW FOOD PRICES

When there were millions of small farmers in the first half of the 20th century, price guarantees acted like wages, shifting short-term risk from labor to employers.

As productive efficiency increased dramatically against an inelastic demand for food, food prices fell dramatically (despite the subsidies) and most small farmers were driven out of the market.

But the subsidies stayed, largely due to the propagandized myth by Big-Ag of glorified small farmers practicing capitalism.

Today, a standard pr line is that food prices would be higher absent the subsidies - maybe, but profits to a highly concentrated industry would also be much lower.

In addition, cutting the subsidies would draw a closer look at the processed crap that gets served in school lunch programs due to these subsidies.

Horny Farmer | October 25, 2007, 10:40am | #

So WTF are those billions being spent on?

Corn-fed hookers! Wee-hah!

edcoast | October 25, 2007, 10:41am | #

Yeah, Reinmoose, and don't forget the gazillion acres of Western federal land open to cattle ranchers at prices less than it costs the taxpayers to administer the land.

fyodor | October 25, 2007, 11:00am | #

These subsidies continue even under "free trade" agreements.

From a politics POV, the aggravating thing about these subsidies is that it aids in reinforcing the view lefties have of free trade agreements, that they're just a disengenous means for western industrialized nations and big corporations to make ever bigger profits at the expense of the poor of the third world. Of course, poor consumers (in both rich and poor countries) are among the chief beneficiaries of freer trade, but it's true that the combination of lower trade barriers and continued farm subsidies in the industrialized world creates a fucked up situation for poor third world farmers, and in addition to that being fucked up in its own right, it makes free trade and free trade advocates look bad in the process (even though we're actually against the subsidies that are the real villain).

Derrick | October 25, 2007, 12:42pm | #

The Founders could have protected against this by stipulating that all laws have a sunset, a date after which they are automatically repealed unless Congress votes to renew them.

But dammit, they didn't.

R C Dean | October 25, 2007, 1:43pm | #

The Founders could have protected against this by stipulating that all laws have a sunset, a date after which they are automatically repealed unless Congress votes to renew them.

Easily circumvented with an omnibus extension bill gaveled through by acclamation at the close of each session.

The Democratic Republican | October 25, 2007, 1:57pm | #

I agree with this article, but I wish reason spent as much time griping about other coporate subsidies as they do about farming. What about defense contractors? Teacher's unions? Entitlements? I spend a lot of time reading reason, and I have to think they spend a disproportionate amount of time on farming -- especially given that it is only a fraction of a percent of what is being spent on the other programs I just mentioned.

MR | October 25, 2007, 2:04pm | #

'The Husbandman'
http://www.bizbag.com/mencken/menkfarm.htm

Terry | October 25, 2007, 2:29pm | #

We need the addresses of the farms taking these subsidies.
Then we call out the Libertarian militia and ride to "make things right".
Are you ready?

Brendan M | October 25, 2007, 6:59pm | #

Part of the problem is that the federal government overrepresents rural farm states at every level. Just look at the Presidential election: the bizarre bipartisan consensus that Iowa has some sort of divine right to hold the first primary, combined with the Electoral College system, guarantee that anyone who wants to be President will defend farmers' place in line for the federal funding trough.

David | October 26, 2007, 2:20am | #

I think the farm subsidy bill has some bizzare side effects cheap corn leads to cheap corn syrup which leads to cheap junk food which leads to obesity.

AL | October 27, 2007, 2:51pm | #

Over 70% of the farm bill funding goes to the WIC program ,or food stamps.The subsidy ensures cheap and plentiful food for all americans.If you think foreign ag is not subsidized you are wrong.When we are dependent on foreign food we will lose our power.If you like being dependent on foreign oil,your going to love being dependent on foreign food!!

nobody | November 3, 2007, 12:52am | #

Wow. I cant beleive anybody is buying this crap. AL is lying or in the pocket of agribusiness.