I've shied away from writing about farm subsidies. They have been the topic of much campus debate lately, and I didn't want to ruin it. In fact, the Political Economy Club recently held a superb round-table discussion on the issue.
More truthfully, however, I just didn't want to be reviled by every farmer in Vermillion. I changed my mind. Revile away.
The farm subsidy system has failed. It's now an antiquated vehicle through which incomes are redistributed and the wealthy are coddled. Subsidies cost taxpayers $25 billon each year, with an extra $12 billion in the artificially high food prices they create.
This wasn't always the case. Subsidies once conjured images of families struggling to survive through harvest. That was 1935. Now it's trite rhetoric.
The subsidy program has strayed from its original intent. Rather than aiding needy farmers, the government helps those who need it least: subsidies are paid according to acreage, so large farms and agribusinesses reap the benefits. In fact, the largest 10 percent of farms received more than 70 percent of subsidy money in recent years.
This occurs through income redistribution. Taxpayers' income is essentially "redistributed" to farmers through subsides and the corresponding high food prices, raising their incomes.
This redistribution is pointless. In 2005, average income for farm households was 26 percent higher than that of the average non-farm household. It's no wonder subsidies have been called "welfare for millionaires."
In addition to being obsolete, the subsidy system is breathtakingly corrupt. The Government Accountability Office found that subsidies pay like a broken Vegas slot machine. Since 2000, more than $1.3 billion has gone to owners of land that isn't even used for farming. This doesn't even compare to the fact that between 1999 and 2005, $1.1 billion in subsidy money was erroneously paid to dead people.
We no longer need subsidies. 90 percent of this money affects only five products: corn, wheat, cotton, soybeans and rice. Others, such as fruits and poultry are largely unsubsidized and doing fine.
You may be amazed at these big numbers, but also wonder how farm subsidies affect you. There are several ways that farm subsidies directly affect students' lives. For those who aren't farm folk, here's an interesting effect:
Read the ingredient list on any candy. It probably contains high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener, rather than sugar. This is odd, as sugar is healthier than corn syrup, relatively.
Sugar isn't used because corn is subsidized. This effectively makes U.S.-grown corn cheaper than imported sugar. Candy companies are looking to cut costs, not your waistline, so they use the corn syrup.
This example is funny, but true. Subsidies affect everyday life, from farmers to executives, from ranchers to college students.
No one wants to see the extinction of the family farm. However, our current agriculture policies are only expediting that conclusion.
Our farm subsidy system needs either immediate reforms or immediate abolition.
Reach columnist Matt Hittle at Matt.Hittle@usd.edu
Be the first to comment on this article!