Friday, November 30, 2007

Re: Romney and Rudy on Farm Subsidies   [Stephen Spruiell]

One further point, Ramesh: Those two arguments for farm subsidies — the "national security" argument and the "everybody else is doing it" argument — are incompatible. I literally smacked my forehead as I listened to Romney talk about how our food supply would be imperiled if we stopped spending billions on farm subsidies (the "national security" argument), then explain in the very next breath that we need to subsidize farmers so that they can compete with other subsidized farmers in overseas markets (the "everybody else is doing it" argument). Why do our farmers need help competing in overseas markets? Because, as Romney explained, we export one-third of our agricultural production. One-third.

Clearly there is no parallel whatsoever between America's food and energy supplies (the parallel Romney tried to draw). America is a net energy importer, and whereas petroleum resources are finite, farmers can always plant more food. What, we're going to suddenly wake up and find ourselves at the mercy of the Organization of Potato Exporting Countries? Please.

The problem with farm subsidies is that they induce far too much production, and the resulting surpluses drive down the prices that farmers can get for their commodities. Farmers, unable to turn a profit, demand more subsidies, and the cycle goes on and on. We should let market signals — not government payouts — determine farmers' planting decisions. It really is that simple.

11/30 02:19 PMShare