WSJ Editorial: Farm subsidies
October 16, 2007
I’m confused about what’s happening at the Wall Street Journal these days. It has always had a deep political divide between the editorial and news pages. Is it possible that news is taking the lead? The October 15 opinion page has an unsigned editorial on the harm farm subsidies do third world farmers and U.S. credibility. It says, “…the case for reducing subsidies has never been stronger. Much of this mess was the work of Republicans five years ago. With the Senate getting ready to debate its farm bill, Democrats have a chance to do so something for the world’s poor and America’s taxpayers. If they don’t, it will be because they don’t want to.” This from the Wall Street Journal? Maybe the time has come?
All this change as Rupurt Murdock is taking charge…hard to see it lasting?
Comment by Mark D. — October 16, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Hrm… you know, between this in the WJD, and senators calling people like Michael Pollan for advice on this bill, maybe something really *is* about to happen. I guess we can always dream, right?
On the other hand (playing the eternal cynic–a role to which I am well suited), this article could be setting up the Dems for a fall if they don’t fix the mess: “If they don’t, it will be because they don’t want to.” Probably it is a good piece, but I like to watch my back.
Comment by Robyn M. — October 16, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
There are a number of sound economical criticisms of the Farm Bill — not least of which is that massive government subsidies of the sort that the Farm Bill contains distort all sorts of markets, and such distortions are by definition inefficient.
One of the things I personally find frustrating is the number of different levels at which the current U.S. food supply makes little sense; the economic is one of those levels. Health is another; flavor a third.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that you don’t have to be committed to ethical consumption OR strict nutrition to find all sorts of things wrong with the food industry in the U.S.
Regards,
Law for Food
Comment by Law For Food — October 18, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
The article says that Republicans were largely to blame for these provisions five years ago. That may be true if these provisions were House language, but in 2001 and 2002, when the Farm bill was drafted and voted on, Senator Daschle was Majority Leader. I recall the South Dakotan leader taking special interest in the “Farm” Bill.
Unfortunately, “Farm” policy [Agribusiness policy] seems largely to be set by region and not political party. Thus, both parties churn out “Farm” bills every six years that continue more or less the same galling policies.
There was a short-lived–very short lived–effort to do something about it in 1996 under Newt Gingrich, but it is quite obvious how that failed.
What I don’t understand is why “farm” state or “farm” district politicians feel they must support policies that mainly benefit the large corporations that have harmed so many of their farming constituents (not to mention everyone else across the globe as well).
Reforming this process will have to be a bipartisan effort–and expect our opponents to be bipartisan as well.
Comment by Fentry — December 17, 2007 @ 8:24 pm