The "maverick" is touting his disagreements with Washington establishment again. At least, that is what neo-cons and his campaign would like anyone watching the progress of the Farm Bill to believe. They are touting the fact that Obama is for the Farm Bill (never mind that he didn't actually vote) and that McCain is against it--so Obama is upholding the subsidies given to wealthy farmers and McCain is stepping in to prevent pork-barrel politics.
Now, if US citizens actually paid attention to the FB--which they should, considering it is a $370 billion package that encompasses everything from food production to prices to international aid to environmental conservation--they would not fall for the likes of David Brooks when he writes in the NYT that Obama is the one serving special interest groups.
First, let's break down this bill. According to CNN.com, $300 billion of the bill goes toward nutrition programs. $40 billion is for subsidies. And $30 billion is for environmental conservation. In no universe (save maybe those entrepreneurs minimally involved in farming who make nearly $1M and receive subsidies) is this bill a quality bill. It does nothing to change the industrial mindset of agriculture in this country. The conservation measures, although authorized in funding, will likely not receive the actual funds.
But to call McCain a maverick for voting against is to obscure truth about his motives. The primary problem with the FB is that--as Bush noted as he vetoed the bill--it hampers US farmers' access to foreign markets. McCain, above almost anything else, is an economic liberal who believes that markets should stay open and free at any expense. When the US subsidizes its farmers, it creates limitations in global trade. International law does not allow for subsidized agriculture to be traded freely.
For those who don't understand why unrestrained free trade in agriculture actually creates hunger rather than alleviates it, take the example of Mexico. Because of NAFTA, US farmers sell their corn in Mexico. However, due to the low cost of production of corn in the US, corn from here sells at a lower price. Considering the rural economy of Mexico, the price undercut forces many from work as farmers due to the lack of profit. Farmers can't compete, they move to the city, they don't earn money...it's a compounding process. And now prices for imported corn have increased due to the use of ethanol as an "alternative" fuel (don't get me started) and there is a lack of production within Mexico, so those that are poor cannot afford their traditional sustenance, the tortilla. Did you know that with beans, a tortilla makes a complete protein? Therefore, even if an individual is only able to obtain beans and tortillas, they can remain relatively healthy. However, due to the high price of corn and lack of supply, Mexicans are turning to processed foods such as Cup'o'noodles.
Advocating trade that is unabashedly free rather than fair does little to help anyone except corporations. It has far-reaching effects that change peoples' lives throughout the globe. While it would be wonderful if both McCain and Obama would speak out against the subsidies included in the Farm Bill, to laud McCain for voting against it only obscures the larger picture. The problem with this farm bill is not that it's doing too much for agribusiness, but rather it is doing too little.
----------------
Now playing: Panic At The Disco - Folkin' Around
via FoxyTunes
Showing posts with label agriculture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label agriculture. Show all posts
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
The Truth is So Undeniable
Today is World Food Day. Did you know? If not, I am not surprised.
According to Sustainable Table Blog, US coverage of the United Nations-sponsored event has been virtually nil. However, this is an event that is being celebrated today in over 150 countries. The theme: Right to Food.
Something most Americans don't have to think about, I suppose. We're lucky here...most of us have access to cheap food. But what we might want to think about is--why?
Our nation glorifies free market policies and exports this value around the world. Yet we are guilty of meddling in the market. Why is our food so cheap? Farm subsidies. Why is nearly all this cheap food infused with corn? Corn subsidies. We deliberately interfere with the free market, insuring that farmers (mostly big agribusiness, actually) receive inflated prices for their commodities.
But when other nations attempt to protect their farmers and/or citizens, the US and the WTO (where the US exerts enormous influence) rally around the cry for Free Markets and insist that nations dismantle trade barriers and cease subsidies. For instance, Mexico, under NAFTA regulations, cannot protect its farmers from the flood of cheap corn from US growers, who are paid subsidies. Mexican farmers cannot compete and so must find other ways of making a living (and we wonder why we have such a flood of immigration). Some might argue that these policies enable poor Mexicans to have their "right to food," but I argue that we are taking away the right of Mexican farmers to provide food to their families and their people.
An interesting instance of a nation asserting its right to food despite the efforts of developed nations is the case of Malawi, which I found on my new favorite site, Grist. Malawi in the 1990s had a program in which it gave the poorest farmers packets of seeds and fertilizer. In 1999, the government gave all farmers these packets, and the end result was a large national surplus. In 2000, amid the wisdom of the developed nations upon which Malawi depends for much of its national budget, the government was forced to dismantle this program. The donor nations insisted that this policy distorted the freedom of the market and refused aid if the program continued.
What happened? Smaller harvests, and two years of famine. What about the people's right to food? Last year, the government of Malawi acknowledged the right of its people to food. They distributed coupons to the poorest farmers, allowing them to purchase fertilizer at a large discount. The results? Food production is up 150%, and the cost of the program is half of what Malawi spent importing food from other nations. Oh, and the famine has ended.
Sometimes we forget, as we sit in the land of plenty, that there are 854 million people who are hungry throughout the world...and that, more often than not, it is our foreign policy that allows for such widespread hunger.
----------------
Now playing: Mae - All Deliberate Speed
via FoxyTunes
According to Sustainable Table Blog, US coverage of the United Nations-sponsored event has been virtually nil. However, this is an event that is being celebrated today in over 150 countries. The theme: Right to Food.
Something most Americans don't have to think about, I suppose. We're lucky here...most of us have access to cheap food. But what we might want to think about is--why?
Our nation glorifies free market policies and exports this value around the world. Yet we are guilty of meddling in the market. Why is our food so cheap? Farm subsidies. Why is nearly all this cheap food infused with corn? Corn subsidies. We deliberately interfere with the free market, insuring that farmers (mostly big agribusiness, actually) receive inflated prices for their commodities.
But when other nations attempt to protect their farmers and/or citizens, the US and the WTO (where the US exerts enormous influence) rally around the cry for Free Markets and insist that nations dismantle trade barriers and cease subsidies. For instance, Mexico, under NAFTA regulations, cannot protect its farmers from the flood of cheap corn from US growers, who are paid subsidies. Mexican farmers cannot compete and so must find other ways of making a living (and we wonder why we have such a flood of immigration). Some might argue that these policies enable poor Mexicans to have their "right to food," but I argue that we are taking away the right of Mexican farmers to provide food to their families and their people.
An interesting instance of a nation asserting its right to food despite the efforts of developed nations is the case of Malawi, which I found on my new favorite site, Grist. Malawi in the 1990s had a program in which it gave the poorest farmers packets of seeds and fertilizer. In 1999, the government gave all farmers these packets, and the end result was a large national surplus. In 2000, amid the wisdom of the developed nations upon which Malawi depends for much of its national budget, the government was forced to dismantle this program. The donor nations insisted that this policy distorted the freedom of the market and refused aid if the program continued.
What happened? Smaller harvests, and two years of famine. What about the people's right to food? Last year, the government of Malawi acknowledged the right of its people to food. They distributed coupons to the poorest farmers, allowing them to purchase fertilizer at a large discount. The results? Food production is up 150%, and the cost of the program is half of what Malawi spent importing food from other nations. Oh, and the famine has ended.
Sometimes we forget, as we sit in the land of plenty, that there are 854 million people who are hungry throughout the world...and that, more often than not, it is our foreign policy that allows for such widespread hunger.
----------------
Now playing: Mae - All Deliberate Speed
via FoxyTunes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
