Here's what a proper "Farm Bill" might say: "If you can sell your produce or livestock for more than the cost of your inputs, you may earn a living as a farmer or rancher. If you can't, you won't. Since weather is unpredictable, you should probably pool your risks by buying insurance. Good luck." Instead, the 949-page monstrosity that's sailing through the US Congress promises to keep protecting certain well-connected farmers from the discipline of the market.
But at least US lawmakers managed to find $23 billion in savings for taxpayers over the next 10 years, right? First of all, the Congressional Budget Office begs to differ, finding only $16.6 billion in savings. Second, that's out of a total cost of $956 billion—a few drops in a very big bucket. And third, those so-called savings are "compared with current funding." The last farm bill, passed in 2008, was projected to cost $640 billion over 10 years, so the current one actually represents a 49% increase in government spending.
Granted, about 4/5 of that spending is straight-up welfare for the poor in the form of food stamps, which has nothing to do with farming (and which is undoubtedly a better way of helping people than raising the minimum wage and pushing some low-income earners into unemployment). But that still leaves about $200 billion in welfare for rich farmers—corporate welfare, as it were, because most of it goes to wealthy corporations.
It's clear why these special interests want to keep feeding at the government trough. But why do regular folks want to pay more for things like sugar and dairy products at the grocery store? Why do taxpayers want to subsidize insurance costs for well-to-do agri-businesses? And what do people have against the Florida Everglades, damaged by sugar cane cultivation that wouldn't take place without import restrictions?
Most people probably don't understand the multiple harms of agricultural subsidies. But even if they did, the costs are spread out among the dispersed population, while the benefits are concentrated among the well-connected few who have a strong interest in spending millions of dollars to lobby legislators. Which is a pretty good reason for curbing the power of governments to micromanage the economy. How do we do that? We could start by demanding that all future laws and regulations be simple and straightforward enough to be understood by an educated layperson—and short enough to fit on a single page.
Granted, about 4/5 of that spending is straight-up welfare for the poor in the form of food stamps, which has nothing to do with farming (and which is undoubtedly a better way of helping people than raising the minimum wage and pushing some low-income earners into unemployment). But that still leaves about $200 billion in welfare for rich farmers—corporate welfare, as it were, because most of it goes to wealthy corporations.
It's clear why these special interests want to keep feeding at the government trough. But why do regular folks want to pay more for things like sugar and dairy products at the grocery store? Why do taxpayers want to subsidize insurance costs for well-to-do agri-businesses? And what do people have against the Florida Everglades, damaged by sugar cane cultivation that wouldn't take place without import restrictions?
Most people probably don't understand the multiple harms of agricultural subsidies. But even if they did, the costs are spread out among the dispersed population, while the benefits are concentrated among the well-connected few who have a strong interest in spending millions of dollars to lobby legislators. Which is a pretty good reason for curbing the power of governments to micromanage the economy. How do we do that? We could start by demanding that all future laws and regulations be simple and straightforward enough to be understood by an educated layperson—and short enough to fit on a single page.