Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | News Flashes | Scoop Features | Scoop Video | Strange & Bizarre | Search

 


Nicolas Heidorn: The Real US Farm Subsidy Scandal

The Real US Farm Subsidy Scandal


By Nicolas Heidorn*
August 9, 2004

Something is definitely rotten on the farm.

The General Accounting Office (GAO), Congress’s fact-finding agency, recently released a study of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s management of the farm subsidy program. The findings should horrify lawmakers but probably won’t.

The GAO revealed that government employees are ill-trained, and federal laws too vague, to properly monitor the hundreds of thousands of farm subsidies granted each year. Although the USDA fact-checks only about 1,000 applications each year, the GAO found many of these approved recipients were ineligible for subsidies. A GAO sample of USDA-reviewed and -approved subsidies revealed that fully 30 percent of even these scrutinized farm subsidies were going to people who shouldn’t be receiving them.

The lack of USDA oversight is outrageous, given how much America spends on subsidies. From 1995 to 2002 the U.S. taxpayer doled out more than $114 billion to farmers, and in 2002 President Bush upped subsidies to $190 billion over the next ten years. For perspective, consider that in 2000 alone U.S. spending on farm subsidies exceeded the total output of more than 70 nations.

With so much money being freely handed about, the GAO report should lead to some tough questions for USDA officials on Capitol Hill. Yet for all its detail, the 75-page report artfully avoids the bigger question that no lawmaker wants to hear: why do we even have farm subsidies?

One popular misconception that contributes to support for farm subsidies is that because they result in lower food prices, they are a boon to consumers. This ignores the fact that taxes pay for these subsidies. Any reduction in supermarket prices is paid for by your taxes—or someone else’s—whether you buy that ear of corn or not.

Farm subsidies are not intended to reduce the cost of food significantly. If prices fell too much, farmers would lose money. To prevent this, Congress also has “environmental” conservation subsidies that pay farmers to not cultivate their land, resulting in higher prices for crops made more scarce. Consequently, from 1995 through 2002 we paid $14 billion for farmland conservation subsidies that increased the price of our food!

Another myth is that farm subsidies can help U.S. exports – and therefore the U.S. economy—because they make our food cheaper for foreigners to buy. This claim ignores (at least) two realities. First, just as farm subsidies are a wealth transfer from some taxpayers to some domestic consumers, so they are a wealth transfer to foreign consumers.

Second, it ignores the fact that farm subsidies are starting to cost U.S. exporters. Last April the World Trade Organization ruled that U.S. cotton subsidies violated global trade rules, which could lead to billions of dollars in retaliatory tariffs or fines. The ruling will encourage developing countries to bring suit against other subsidized U.S. exports.

But if the U.S. stops subsidizing agriculture, this could encourage others to do the same. Franz Fischler, the European Union’s agriculture commissioner, recently assured that, “Provided we get a balanced deal, we are ready to put all of [Europe’s] export subsidies on the table.” Given that European agricultural subsidies are almost six times greater than U.S. subsidies per hectare, American exporters would gain tremendously from an end to subsidies. Farmers in the developing world, who struggle in the face of unfair competition from crops subsidized by governments of the developed world, would also gain.

The most enduring political illusion is that farm subsidies are necessary to maintain the small family farmer. In fact, 77 percent of Americans support giving subsidies to small family farms, according to a 2004 poll by the PIPA/Knowledge Network.

Small family farmers are not the primary dollar recipients of federal subsidies, however. According to the subsidy watchdog Environmental Working Group, 71 percent of farm subsidies go to the top 10 percent of subsidy beneficiaries, almost all of which are large farms. In 2002, 78 farms, none small or struggling, each received over a million dollars in subsidies. The bottom 80 percent of recipients average only $846 per year.

The result of subsidizing the rich, more landed farmers is that they can reduce the prices of their goods, making it much harder for small farmers to compete. Rather than being the small family farmers’ savior, subsidies work against them.

Why then do we have farm subsidies at all?

Rich farmers are a powerful lobby in American politics. In the last election, crop producers gave $11.5 million in campaign contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and they are likely to give much more by this November.

So don’t be surprised that the GAO’s report won’t be taken too seriously on Capitol Hill. Farm subsidies are more than just payoffs for loaded, large landowners. They’re subsidies for your elected official.

*************

*Nicolas Heidorn is a public policy intern at The Independent Institute in Oakland, California.

For further information, see the Independent Institute’s book on wasteful farm programs,Agriculture and the State: Market Processes and Bureaucracy, by Ernest C. Pasour, Jr.


© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Top Scoops Headlines

 

Werewolf: Living With Rio’s Olympic Ruins

Mariana Cavalcanti Critics of the Olympic project can point a discernible pattern in the delivery of Olympics-related urban interventions: the belated but rushed inaugurations of faulty and/or unfinished infrastructures... More>>

Live Blog On Now: Open Source//Open Society Conference

The second annual Open Source Open Society Conference is a 2 day event taking place on 22-23 August 2016 at Michael Fowler Centre in Wellington… Scoop is hosting a live blog summarising the key points of this exciting conference. More>>

ALSO:

Buildup:

Gordon Campbell: On The Politicising Of The War On Drugs In Sport

It hasn’t been much fun at all to see how “war on drugs in sport” has become a proxy version of the Cold War, fixated on Russia. This weekend’s banning of the Russian long jumper Darya Klishina took that fixation to fresh extremes. More>>

ALSO:

Binoy Kampmark: Kevin Rudd’s Failed UN Secretary General Bid

Few sights are sadder in international diplomacy than seeing an aging figure desperate for honours. In a desperate effort to net them, he scurries around, cultivating, prodding, wishing to be noted. Finally, such an honour is netted, in all likelihood just to shut that overly keen individual up. More>>

Open Source / Open Society: The Scoop Foundation - An Open Model For NZ Media

Access to accurate, relevant and timely information is a crucial aspect of an open and transparent society. However, in our digital society information is in a state of flux with every aspect of its creation, delivery and consumption undergoing profound redefinition... More>>

Keeping Out The Vote: Gordon Campbell On The US Elections

I’ll focus here on just two ways that dis-enfranchisement is currently occurring in the US: (a) by the rigging of the boundary lines for voter districts and (b) by demanding elaborate photo IDs before people are allowed to cast their vote. More>>

Ramzy Baroud: Being Black Palestinian - Solidarity As A Welcome Pathology

It should come as no surprise that the loudest international solidarity that accompanied the continued spate of the killing of Black Americans comes from Palestine; that books have already been written and published by Palestinians about the plight of their Black brethren. In fact, that solidarity is mutual. More>>

ALSO:


Get More From Scoop

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Top Scoops
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news