Agricultural Subsidies Really Are Evil
Before I started blogging, back when I was much more libertarian and cynical, the only political issue I professed to care about was agricultural subsidies. I would detail to anyone willing to listen to a nasally voiced, strident 14-15 year old just how undeniably evil it was to depress agricultural prices and impoverish millions of farmers in the developing world. Oh yeah, and ethanol, I hated ethanol. While we were gearing up for war in Iraq, I was preaching on the evils of tariffs on Brazillian sugar ethanol. To me, the face of political evil were the Midwestern and southern legislators who were responsible for these godawful polices. I still think that agricultural subsidies are pretty bad, but I’ve broadened my political focus a bit and try not to be so annoying. But reading this Michael Gerson column got those old globalist libertarian juices flowing:
The effects in the cotton-growing regions of West Africa are dramatic. American subsidies result in overproduction, which depresses the global price of cotton, which keeps millions of Africans on the edge of malnutrition. In some of the poorest countries on Earth, cotton farmers are some of the poorest people, earning about a dollar a day. The typical cotton-producing household has 10 members. About 40 percent of children under 5 are malnourished.
Who benefits from the current system of subsidies? About 20,000 American cotton producers, with an average annual income of more than $125,000 — a portion of which goes to hire lobbyists. And these lobbyists do their work well. Even after the World Trade Organization in 2005 found U.S. cotton supports to be illegal, Congress made only cosmetic changes in policy. And recently the compliance panel of the WTO reaffirmed that America remains in violation.Who would benefit from a reform of subsidies? A recent report by Oxfam America, ” Paying the Price,” estimates that family incomes for perhaps 10 million people in West Africa would increase by 2.3 to 5.7 percent. This extra cash would feed an additional 1 million children a year, or pay the school fees for 2 million children, or allow farm families to pay for medicine and buy fertilizer to increase their yields.
What possible justification can there be to give any money to TWENTY THOUSAND cotton producers?! More people go to f***ing Raiders games, we deserve that cash more because we have to put up with our awful team. Reading about policies like this make me want to head to George Mason and start worshipping at the feet of James Buchanan.
All kidding aside, cotton subsidies are ultimately a moral issue. How many Africans need to die so that 20,000 cotton producers can continue to grow crops inefficiently supported by out tax dollars? This is the tradeoff, and it reflects very poorly on our politics that we’ve answered this question in such an appalling manner.
