Make Subsidies Work

I was impressed with Sen. John McCain a couple of weeks ago when, in front of a crowd from the farm belt, he said he didn’t support farm subsidies. That got me thinking about the topic of subsidies in general. I find it hard to wrap my head around what the real intention is.

Since it was farm subsidies in particular that got me started, let’s stay with them. You would think that the first subsidies were meant to help the small independent farms protect themselves from large corporations, and even if that was the case then, it isn’t now. These days, subsidies artificially depress prices to make U.S. produce competitive with that from foreign nations. Which, in order to remain competitive, keeps those same nations from actually developing and growing in prosperity (I won’t take time to discuss all the ramifications, but think about those areas of the world with the most civil unrest).

Now, if the subsidies are keeping prices artificially low, they are not going towards improved farming methods or other innovations, which would go much farther in the long run.

Hmmm, and where does the money come from to pay for these subsidies? Why, our taxes, of course! (Sorry for the cynical tone.) But that means that we are paying for that same produce one way or another. It also means that the government, perhaps rightly so, that given the choice we would choose the less expensive produce. So they force the issue.

And the price is nothing to sneeze at. The current farm bill moving through Congress is priced at $307 billion. Which comes to about $1,000 per person. Makes that $300 economic stimulus check seem downright silly, doesn’t it?

I am all for subsidies that work to improve how we work. When they only support prices, however, we gain nothing.

Make subsidies do something.

For further reading, check out these sites:

• http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5233
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html
• http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0506-09.htm

:: :: ::

Against Pure Partisanship

Last month’s The Atlantic included a piece from Matthew Yglesias making his “Case for Partisanship”. The basic thrust of his argument is that strict ideological partisanship leads to greater predictability in what legislation will pass and decreases the power of lobbyists.

He compares the polarization of the parties today to the coalitions of the past that worked so hard to maintain segregation, especially in the South.

Predictability, however, doesn’t necessarily mean that good things will happen. The anti-desegregation coalitions were predictable, too. Not because of political ideologies, but through pure geography. And it was no better.

When operate along strict lines, one of two things will always happen. We either will have a piece of legislation that never passes or we have legislation forced upon on that creates additional problems. Most often, those problems are avoidable when all opposing views are included in the process. It is then incumbent upon those involved to develop a solution that does the most good.

So, no, partisanship is not the answer. There is a happy medium, one the necessitates that those representing constituents behave that way with an eye toward reasonable compromise. Simply because one party has more members in power doesn’t mean that they can go to radical extremes in making political statements so they can get that Sunday morning interview or clip on the evening news. Or push through legislation that truly satisfies a select few.

The point is to represent all of us, not just those that voted for you. Negotiate legislation and policies that do the greatest good, not just addresses a special interest. When you represent all of the people in good faith and not based on hardline party politics, you end up doing what you were elected to do. And those who voted for the other guy last time, may vote for you the next time around.

:: :: ::

Activism Struggles with the Other Side of the Issue

Activism usually comes about because someone doesn’t believe enough, or the right, people are paying attention to a particular issue. In general, though, activists seek only to push their view of the agenda without sitting on the other side of the table, seeking to understand the other view. Without taking the time to gain that true understanding or acknowledging the viability of the counter arguments, other problems develop.

You can find one such example in my post from last week. But there are others. For instance, in the late-1990s and early-2000s activists in Europe worked incredibly hard to ban genetically modified foods or foods that contained genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Now that there is a global food shortage, particularly affecting poorer nations, those same activists are reconsidering their stance. Producing GMO food, which can withstand blight and other diseases better, would go a long way to feeding millions. Are there potentially negative consequences to using GMO food? Absolutely. Without other viable solutions, however, in the midst of this crisis, it is the best opportunity so far.

Another example is less obvious. Globalization has greatly benefited developed and developing nations alike. We can acquire certain commodities and goods at lower prices because poorer nations are now able to produce and ship them overseas. That includes food, even those that are out of season. Last week, though, famed chef and TV personality Gordon Ramsay announced that he had approached UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown about fining restaurants that didn’t source their produce locally and in season. I am a bit of a fan of the fiery chef (pardon the pun), and I can sympathize with his intent. In fact, I applaud the sentiment.

At the same time, spurning global production for strictly locally-grown produce goes flies in the face of the same forces that have helped him to become an international star. And it could cause a severe blow to those developing nations.

I like local produce because it tends to be fresher. And I like food in season because it just seems natural and right. But if we have a bad growing season, and I am looking for something that I can get from somewhere else, I’ll probably get it. In 2008, that’s the way it should be.

:: :: ::

Unintended Consequences or Lack of Forethought?

Usually, when decisions that we make have a profound impact on other things or people, we say that there were unintended consequences. At times, I will agree. Most of the time, in fact, that is probably true. We may not have intended those consequences, but they happened anyway. In reality, we hoped those bad things weren’t going to happen.

The problem isn’t that the outcomes were completely unforeseen. It’s just that we didn’t think them through enough to understand what the impact would be.

I’ll give an example. Congress decides to offer substantial farm subsidies, greater than normal, for corn grown for ethanol. It is a politically expedient choice to make as it signals to Americans they are finding ways to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Perhaps on all oil for that matter.

So farmers throughout the Midwest start dedicating their acreage to corn grown for ethanol. They enjoy higher subsidies. We get cheaper blended gas (not available everywhere). Everyone is happy.

Everyone except people who like to eat. With less corn being grown for feed, it gets more expensive to feed cattle, pigs and chickens. It leads to higher prices for meat, milk and anything that contains high fructose corn syrup (check your pantry, and you’ll find that ingredient in most non-organically produced products).

Oh yeah, and the potential costs of using corn-based ethanol as our primary fuel source far outweighs any benefit. Certainly, there are other options, such as sugar or nearly any other starch producing product. Many of the same issues, however, are likely to appear.

Additionally, once we figure out the best option, we will have to wait several years for widespread access while automakers design, build and sell the cars that will run on the fuel. Other countries have a bit of a headstart on us, but they don’t consume nearly the amount of fuel that we do in America, so it’s not a fair comparison.

For the record, let me state that I am an enormous proponent of reducing our dependence on all oil, both foreign and domestic. But with the world having more mouths to feed every day and less land for farming at nearly the same rate, Earth-bound, plant-based fuels is not the way to go.

I don’t have the solution, so, in reality, I should keep my mouth shut on this (one of my mantras is that you have no right to criticize unless you have an alternative to offer).

No. As a matter of fact, I do have some solutions. Many of which would be easy to implement and in some cases are already there.

• Business tax credits for telecommuting—the technology is available for most businesses
• Time shifts to reduce energy usage and traffic buildups
• Investments in light rail
• Greater emphasis on fuel-efficient commuter vehicles (save the SUVs for weekend family excursions)

And we’d still be able to eat.

Check out this Wikipedia entry about ethanol for a pretty good look at the issue from all sides.

:: :: ::