Farm Bill Follies

Farm Bill Follies

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

Over on Swampland, Joe Klein takes justified digs at Obama and Clinton for their support of the $300-billion farm bill, which both Bush and McCain have opposed. There’s a whole litany of reasons why the farm bill is a failure, as detailed in last fall’s excellent cover story in TIME–it fuels obesity, degrades the environment, promotes megafarms (the top 10% of subsidized farmers absorb three-quarters of the bill’s subsidies) and the depopulation of rural America. Most obviously, the farm bill is an easy whipping boy for those concerned with federal pork, and with negotiators doling out baksheesh like a $126-million tax break for racehorse owners (a nod to Sen. McConnell’s home state), that’s not surprising.

More importantly, however, the bill stands as a timepiece that marks how badly skewed U.S. policy remains against the rest of the developing world. If there ever was a moment to revise our nation’s morally defunct food policies, with hunger riots sweeping countries from Cameroon to Haiti, now would’ve been that time. But this year, Congress again begged off reforming the farmer subsidies that, if removed–to take just one example–could, according to one study, boost the income of an average West African cotton farmer’s income by as much as 6%.

What’s more, in supporting the current farm bill, Congress has voted emphatically to continue depriving the hungry of billions in food assistance. As we wrote this February, for decades rather than allowing the purchase of local food aid abroad, successive U.S. farm bills have endorsed a policy that requires the overwhelming majority of food aid to be purchased from American producers before being packaged and shipped–laboriously and slowly–overseas. The policy is disastrous: especially with rising fuel costs, the cost of overhead now absorbs some 65 cents of every dollar we spend on such so-called food aid. (A report by the OECD found that this policy–while beneficial to U.S. producers–wastes about $750 million a year.) Like farm subsidies for millionaires, the policy would be almost comically wasteful if it didn’t say so much about our politics, and if the stakes for millions of people abroad weren’t so high.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x