Agriculture is a bright spot in the American economy, with exports humming and commodity prices rising. Why do farmers, especially well-off farmers, still need the billions in subsidies they are guaranteed every year?...
>>>Agriculture is a bright spot in the American economy, with exports humming and commodity prices rising. Why do farmers, especially well-off farmers, still need the billions in subsidies they are guaranteed every year?
It's a question that has been asked by fiscal conservatives and liberal environmentalists, by the editorial pages of both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, by President Obama and, before him, by President Bush.
With a House full of newly elected Republicans who pledged to cut federal spending, will the next farm bill be different? Some new members of Congress, like Kristi Noem of South Dakota, campaigned as deficit hawks, but have defended subsidies as a national security issue: the decline of farms could mean more food imports, they say. (Ms. Noem had partial ownership in a ranch that received more than $3 million in subsidies over 15 years, before her family bought her out last year.)
Do payments to farms protect national security? Or, more broadly, how should the farm subsidy program be changed?
(click more the discussion on NYT's Room for Debate on Farming Subsidies, as they have come into question in this time of budget deficits)
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/11/21/do-farm-subsidies-protect-national-security
