Nick Oliva - Should the U.S. end agricultural subsidies?

There is a federal subsidy for just about everything grown if you want to try and get it...

The reason that I oppose subsidies is because they discourage competition and free enterprise in agriculture. Most small farmers who utilize subsidies to stay afloat are not getting a subsidy to help grow or produce something-they are getting one NOT to produce something-specifically, to only grow a certain amount of whatever it is that they grow so as to keep prices artificially inflated. The recent tobacco "buyout" is a classic example. The press made it sound like the buyout was going to curb tobacco production, but the buyout is liable to have the opposite effect. The feds were buying out what was called people's "tobacco allotments," the certificates whereby the federal government tells a farmer or landowner how much of their land can be devoted to tobacco production if they are to receive a federal tobacco subsidy. Many landowners had allotments with their land but were not using them, and would sell their allotments to tobacco farmers who wanted to grow more burley and still get the subsidy.

With the subsidy gone, there is no artificial cieling on tobacco production anymore, and we are still growing large amounts for export-people who want to grow tobacco will grow more of it than they had been growing (it is still one of the most profitable crops grown in the U.S., so even though there may be fewer growers, it will balance out.

Corn subsidies are also on the rise because of ethanol production, only the feds are now encouraging farmers to grow more corn as opposed to the tradition of stabilizing production.

Anyone who does $1,000 a year or more in agricultural business and has at least 30 acres devoted to agriculture could get some kind of subsidy if they wanted it. Increasingly, small farmers don't want the subsidies because in this time of increasing scarcity, it benefits farmers to grow more and they are actually losing money if they take the subsidy. The reason the bulk of the subsidies no longer go to small landowners is because it is no longer profitable for them to take the subsidies, as it once was.

The large food conglomerates (ADM, ConAgra, etc.) love the subsidies because keeping prices at a certain level benefits their corporate operations-when they buy from small farmers, they want to buy cheap-when these companies grow the stuff on their own operations, they want to subsidize and limit their corporate production and sell high.

5/19/2008 5:24:34 PM

Nick, while I agree completely with your stand, your comment shows a gross lack of knowledge about agriculture, agribusiness, and how farming and farm subsidies actually work. It also belies the typical Northern urban mentality that most country folks are rich because we are landowners (a stereotype I get quite a lot). The reality is that most of us are landowners either because land is cheap out here, or because land was handed down to us.

Though your stand is correct, you might do yourself a greater service to learn a bit more about that which you are taking a stand.

5/16/2008 1:53:40 PM