Farm Subsidies & Pork

[Katana]

Thanks for posting this thread, Katana. People usually go into serious doze mode at the first mention of "farming" or "subsidies" (which inattention is partially to blame for the current state of affairs). Understand that the USDA agricultural subsidies regime is a textbook example of what happens when interests of politicians and a narrow special group overlap exactly. The 2004 Presidential Election voting behavior in two side by side states helps illustrate.

You're welcome. Always nice to know one's rants are appreciated.

Upshot? We get screwed and farmers get paid massive subsidies to either not farm or to produce way more of what they were going to produce anyway. Laugh about that the next time you're eating a peanut butter sandwich that cost 4 times what it should and wash it down with milk that costs 5 times what it should. Food availability and price stability have absolutely nothing to do with it, other than making for some really tear jerking fancy rhetoric for the sentimental saps who are easily frightened by such Sh!tofbull.

Oh, I'm not laughing (I know that you were kidding). I'm really disturbed by this practice. Good grief. Wouldn't we all love to be in a business with this amount of sentimentally-, politically-, lobbyist-motivated protectionism. I share the concerns of those who point out its deleterious effects on developing nations. Look at how it has affected talks at the WTO.

However, those who express concerns about the potential for being dependent on other countries for something as vital as food have a point, too. I think that the recent pet food recall speaks to a real vulnerability.

Then again, how good a job is the FDA doing at monitoring the safety of our domestic food supply? Of course, when a goverrnment chooses to underfund its regulatory bodies while sending billions each week to Iraq and providing hundreds of millions to bail out business as we see in this spending bill, well, I can only say that it gets what it pays for.

 

[Beerina]

Scanerio: Corn farmers faced falling corn prices, and have to switch to selling a variety of corn fit for consumption to a variety of corn fit for making biodisel, a scenario that is actually playing out in regions in the American heartland. Unless we subsidized the corn farmers to keep producing corn for consumption the supply of corn would drop dramatically.

Apparently that's a problem for Mexico at the moment, where people rely on corn for tortillas as a staple a lot more than the US does for corn food products.

They weep for having to use flour tortillas, but that's how economics works -- capitalism produces substitutes if necessary. You are still fed, if not quite what you're used to.

 

[Beerina]

Farm subsidies can exist for a number of reasons:

Trying to stabilise the food suppy
Trying to introduce a new crop into a country
Trying to get rid of a crop (say opium) by promoteing a different crop
Reduceing food prices at the point of purchase
Trying to keep farmers on the land (which is what the current lot of subsidies should do in theory)
Trying to support certian forms of land mamagement (make sure all those drainage ditches are kept in good condition
Covering the cost of expensis imposed by the goverment (in the UK farmers were given £5 to demolish pill boxes after WW2 although most didn't bother).

You forgot votes. They get the votes of farming communities.

Quite frankly, it just emphasizes that if you get money from the government, you should give up your vote in the next election -- severe conflict of interest.

It happens in most democracies. You can only pass a certian number of bills in a certian time period

This is a good thing. You can't seriously expect the population, under threat of jail from these laws, to understand and follow them with a legislature passing new ones hand over fist, can you?

so it makes sense to attach certian non-contiversal stuff to unrelated to bills to save time (say closeing minor tax loopholes or shifting a few chemicals into a different enviromental braket) this is more of an issue in democracies where things are highly centeralised.

If that were the real reason, I'd be fine with it (neglecting issues of authority of Congress in certain areas.) But the real reason for these pork riders is to buy your vote (the Congressman's). Do this for me, I'll do that for you.

It's also why all presidents want the line item veto, and Congress doesn't want to give it to them -- they don't want presidents carving off all the pork while leaving the main legislation intact, especially when they might end up carving off only the opposing party's pork.

Needless to say that would upset the backroom dealing dynamics of politics.

 

[Beerina]

Subsidies on non-profitable industries have been around for literally hundreds of years but in the end never had the desired effect.

Incorrect. They have successfully purchased the votes of the Congressman in legislation, and the votes of those receiving the pork payouts back home to elect the Congressman in the next election.

They are having the desired effect most certainly. Most people are just confused as to what the desired effect is.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Free and/or cheap milk, eggs and pork. Do you also get healthy food?

Wheat, sugar, canned tomatoes, canned vegetables and fruits, peanut butter, jelly, there's a long list of foods the school districts get through this program. There are even food processing vendors that market to the schools (and presumably prisons and the military, but I don't know) by offering to take those commodities and process them into pre-packaged sandwhiches, pizzas, and other foods.

 

[peptoabysmal]

I guess that's why the Republicans abolished farm subsidies. 'Cos they're not socialists, are they.

... are they?

Well then, why did they increase farm subsidies? Here's a report from 2002 which may give us a clue:

"Members of Congress who are poised to spend at least $171 billion on direct farm subsidies over the next decade would be wise to examine newly released statistics detailing who actually receives these subsidies. In 2001, Fortune 500 companies and large agribusinesses shattered previous farm subsidy records, while small family farmers saw their share of the subsidy pie shrink.

These subsidy programs tax working Americans to award millions to millionaires and provide profitable corporate farms with money that has been used to buy out family farms. The current farm bills would provide even greater subsidies for large farmers, costing the average household $4,400 over the next 10 years, while facilitating increased consolidation and buyouts in the agricultural industry."

Ah, good ol' corporate welfare.

---

BTW, are there any subsidies for pig farmers, or would the irony be too great?

According to the full story this practice was greatly accelerated in 1998.

...
Congress has siphoned record amounts of money into farm subsidies since 1998; and
...

Sadly, yes, the US is drifting into full blown socialism. This includes Republicans, Democrats, Greenies and others. Since this is often disguised as aid, maybe it could be said that the US has complications brought on by aids .

Maybe some of the cause is having to compete with a global market artificially modulated by socialists:

...
While U.S. and EU pork prices fell sharply between May and December 1998, EU prices declined much more gradually than in the United States and were less volatile. The relative stability of the EU market during that period is largely attributed to the EU’s extensive use of export subsidies. Export subsidies, which increased five times over a period of 8 months, encouraged exports of competitively priced EU pork. Export gains supported EU prices by lifting excess pork off the domestic market. Restitutions reached their highest levels in December 1998 when U.S. live hog prices fell to 57-year lows.
...
European Union Export Subsidies for Pork Distort World Trade
Does this qualify as the pork-pork example you are looking for?

Since the current Congress is controlled by Democrats, how likely do you think the problem will be resolved now? Let's wait and see what Congress does with this:

Washington -- The Bush administration is proposing to reduce its farm support programs over the next five years by tying commodity subsidies to farmers' incomes.

The new farm bill proposal the administration has sent to Congress would make U.S. farmers more competitive in the global agriculture marketplace while tightening spending, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said during a January 31 briefing for reporters.
...
Savings would be achieved, in part, by making farmers who earn more than a specified income ineligible for farm support payments.

Instead, farmers would receive some income protection during periods when crop yield is low by linking payments to revenue rather than price. In this way, farmers suffering from such calamities as drought or floods would get more payments than they currently do under those situations.
...
Bush Administration Proposes Cutting Farm Subsidies

 

[pgwenthold]

Whereas the talk of farm subsidies is pretty interesting, I see that no one has even tried to defend subsidies for tobacco farmers.

 

[boooeee]

Whereas the talk of farm subsidies is pretty interesting, I see that no one has even tried to defend subsidies for tobacco farmers.

To quote Dave Barry, we subsidize farmers to grow tobacco so that they don't decide to do something worse, like beat crippled children with baseball bats.

 

[Kerberos]

You forgot votes. They get the votes of farming communities.

Quite frankly, it just emphasizes that if you get money from the government, you should give up your vote in the next election -- severe conflict of interest.

And that comment frankly just emphasizes what Libertarian know about Politics. Everyone has a "conflict of interests" when it comes to government. Even looking solely at money there is no way to clearly differentiate between those who do get money and those who don't. If you subsidize a company should only the owner lose the right to vote, or also the people employed there and people who shop who might get indirect benefits? If I sell expensive cars to the owner that he might not be able to afford otherwise do I also loose the right to vote? Also you can arrange indirect subsidies through the tax system. The logical consequence of preventing people with conflict of interests from voting is dictatorship.

 

[FarmallMTA]

That must be a big problem in:

(a) Cuba.

(b) The magical fantasy world inside your head.

Not wanting to bother much with counter insulting, but thanks for using your (a) to illustrate and prove my very point. I'm guessing your (b) apparently relates to your own "imaginary superhero." Nothing wrong with that. My 2 yr old does the same thing.

 

[geni]

You forgot votes. They get the votes of farming communities.

Sometimes. Problem is that it has been going on for so long in many cases it is less a case of vuying votes rather a case of not giveing them to your oposition.

Quite frankly, it just emphasizes that if you get money from the government, you should give up your vote in the next election -- severe conflict of interest.

I supose that would be a good way of reduceing the voteing pop to zero. Personaly I don't see the conflict of interest in voteing for the part most likely to give me money if that is what I want.

This is a good thing. You can't seriously expect the population, under threat of jail from these laws, to understand and follow them with a legislature passing new ones hand over fist, can you?

Depends. If you end up in a situation where every divorce or speed limit change requires an act of parliment then it isn't too much of a problem.

If that were the real reason, I'd be fine with it (neglecting issues of authority of Congress in certain areas.) But the real reason for these pork riders is to buy your vote (the Congressman's). Do this for me, I'll do that for you.

Depends on the system.

It's also why all presidents want the line item veto,

There are other reasons

and Congress doesn't want to give it to them -- they don't want presidents carving off all the pork while leaving the main legislation intact, especially when they might end up carving off only the opposing party's pork.

Or the president would accept the money for X but carve off certian restrictions on what they can do with it (you can have the money for the nuclear power plant but must put this different bit of money asside for waste disposal. Waste disposal is politicaly tricky so veto that bit).

Needless to say that would upset the backroom dealing dynamics of politics.

Not really. House of lords in the UK has what is in effect an line item veto for certian stuff (or the ability to add bits, change bits or fold the bill into pretty shapes should they so chose).

 

[meg]

I'd like to second the thanks to Katana for this thread. I'm finding it fascinating, myself.

My own opinions about why we have farm subsidies:

1. Less than 10% of the land surface of the planet is farmable. This number is declining rapidly. In the US, over 100,000 hectares per year (out of 179,000,000 hectares total cropland) convert from farm to urban use. Worldwide farmland has decreased by over 1/3 over the last 40 years. The causes for this vary: urban growth, retirement of marginal land, erosion, and soil salinization are some of the reasons.

2. The population of the planet is increasing by about 1.2% (about 77 million) per year

3. American farmers are disappearing rapidly for a whole bunch of reasons.

1 and 2 combined together to result in world cropland per capita that has declined to now being only 0.27 ha per capita; in China only 0.08 ha now is available. 0.5 hectare per capita is considered minimal for a diverse diet similar to that of the U.S. and Europe.

1, 2 and 3 combined, if you think about them for a minute or two, make it clear why a country might choose to create programs that keep farmland as farmland and farmers farming, even if it means they grow too much food to feed all its fat little citizens for now. It could even be considered a matter of national security that a country that wishes to remain a world power maintain its ability to feed itself, and its allies, if need be.

As to which farmers and what farm products get subsidized, well, first off, you've got to watch out for the grain farmers, since that really is what feeds the world.. and if you look here: http://www.ewg.org/farm/farms_by_state.php you see that the majority of the the states which have a high rate of farms receiving subsidy payments are in the predominately grain producting states (ND, SD, NE, KS, IA, IL) After that, I think it doesn't really matter. The main idea is just to keep farms farms, and farmers farming, so they hand em out based on who's got the best lobbyists, or who's got the hardest luck story this year, I think.

And in the meantime, in a global way, big reserves of food are very handy, politically. You can give a bunch of it to hard pressed countries, which makes them have to be indebted to you, which gives you the power to influence them, as well as the upper hand in trade negotiations.

Or, as talked about by others, you can dump it in another country and thereby manipulate their market to your advantage.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Not wanting to bother much with counter insulting, but thanks for using your (a) to illustrate and prove my very point. I'm guessing your (b) apparently relates to your own "imaginary superhero." Nothing wrong with that. My 2 yr old does the same thing.

I suppose that was meant to mean something.

Were you trying to say "tu quoque"?

But you must remember, before you bleat that out, that I don't live in a magic fantasy world where "socialists" subsidise "buggy whips".

It's 'cos of this clever little psychological technique I have called "not being insane".

 

[davefoc]

I suppose that was meant to mean something.

Were you trying to say "tu quoque"?

But you must remember, before you bleat that out, that I don't live in a magic fantasy world where "socialists" subsidise "buggy whips".

It's 'cos of this clever little psychological technique I have called "not being insane".

I am not sure I understand this dispute, but subsidizing buggy whip manufacturing is exactly what one kind of socialist aims to do. Yes at this point in time no socialists are working to subsidize buggy whips, but I think FarmallMTA's point was that as buggy whip manufacturers were being decimated by market forces some kinds of socialists that favor using government resources to manipulate markets that they see as doing something unfair to somebody would have attempted to pass buggy whip subsidy legislation. If buggy whip manufacturing had been a particularly large business the buggy whip lobbying groups would have bribed congressman to support buggy whip subsidies. So buggy whip subsidies would have been favored by the true believer market interventionist socialists and the cynical bribe taking congressman. And sometimes you just can't tell the difference.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I am not sure I understand this dispute, but subsidizing buggy whip manufacturing is exactly what one kind of socialist aims to do. Yes at this point in time no socialists are working to subsidize buggy whips, but I think FarmallMTA's point was that as buggy whip manufacturers were being decimated by market forces some kinds of socialists that favor using government resources to manipulate markets that they see as doing something unfair to somebody would have attempted to pass buggy whip subsidy legislation.

Yes, you've put his straw man into a nutshell, and it doesn't make it any less nutty.

Who are these "socialists" anyway?

 

[armageddonman]

Wheat, sugar, canned tomatoes, canned vegetables and fruits, peanut butter, jelly, there's a long list of foods the school districts get through this program. There are even food processing vendors that market to the schools (and presumably prisons and the military, but I don't know) by offering to take those commodities and process them into pre-packaged sandwhiches, pizzas, and other foods.

So they're only getting processed junk?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

So they're only getting processed junk?

Huh? They get wheat, canned tomatoes, peanut butter, meat, corn and all the staple foods most American eat.

 

[armageddonman]

Huh? They get wheat, canned tomatoes, peanut butter, meat, corn and all the staple foods most American eat.

I rest my case. No wonder so many people are obese/malnourished in this country.

 

[Katana]

I rest my case. No wonder so many people are obese/malnourished in this country.

I think this whenever I go to the grocery store and look at what everyone around me is buying. Doesn't anyone know how to cook for themselves anymore? I feel like everyone is giving me sideways glances for buying such strange things as fruit and vegetables.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I rest my case. No wonder so many people are obese/malnourished in this country.

Case?

Ok, here's the menu's for Miami-Dade County Public schools across the district for this week.

Breakfast.

Lunch.

Not too shabby, really.

Here's the general plan under which the meals are constructed.

They lunches are built according to strict serving guidelines. If a district deviated by servings that are too small, for example, they'd sudden;y be cut off from millions of dollars of DoD food.

Here's the gist of how lunches are put together:

Elementary Schools

1. Includes Pre K or K through grade five (5) and special education classes operating in conjunction with an elementary school.
2. Fifth graders enrolled in middle schools are not eligible to purchase an elementary priced meal.

The Elementary Reimbursible Lunch Includes:
Meat or Meat Alternate........................ 2 Ounces, Cooked*
Vegetables and/or Fruits....................... 3/4 Cup*
(Two Items of 3/8 Cup Each)
Bread or Bread Alternate....................... 1 Serving
Milk.................................................... 1/2 Pint
Upon a student's request, the amount of fruit/vegetable served to grades Pre K-3 may be decreased to 2 cup (two (2) 3 cup servings each). Also at student's request meat or meat alternates may be decreased in accordance with USDA Guidelines. Students who request second portions of fruit or vegetables may be served a second portion at no cost.
Secondary Schools

1. Middle schools - Includes grades 6-9, and special education classes and fifth graders enrolled in middle school.
2. Senior high schools - Includes grades 9 through 12, and special education programs directly related to senior high schools.

The Secondary Reimbursible Lunch Includes:
Meat or Meat Alternate........................ 2 Ounces, Cooked*
OR Non-preportioned entrees................. 3 Ounces
Vegetables and/or Fruits....................... 3/4 Cup*
(Two Items of 3/8 Cup Each)
Bread or Bread Alternate........................ 1 Serving
Milk..................................................... 1/2 Pint

There's also mixed salads at some schools, and there's always a salad bar.