Essay - Farm Subsidies Introduction This Is A Reaction Paper on an...

Farm Subsidies

Introduction

This is a re*****ction paper on an article on Farm ***** by David Hosansky in the CQ Researcher of May 17, 2002 (Pages 433-456). The article is a 23-page report on the $ 249 billi***** US Farm Bill signed into law by President Bush on May 13, 2002 that drastically increases farm subsidies over the next 10 years. It covers topics such as ***** Issues, Background, Current Situation & Outlook, and Sidebars and Graphics. ***** report is a fairly comprehensive and informative write-up on the *****sue, which is to be expected as ***** author is a two-time Pulitzer Prize nominee. However, in my opinion it lacks an international perspective of the *****sue and ***** author (perhaps in an effort ***** give both sides of the picture) does not take a clear-cut st***** on the merits or demerits of ***** Subsidies.

***** Implications

The signing into ***** of the US Farm Bill in May 2002 has serious and profound international implications. These effects have only been mentioned in pass*****g by the author ***** ***** not ***** analyzed or explained in sufficient depth. F***** example, the ***** ***** have been built into the Bill (a massive 70% hike over the current levels) would result in *****production of such food products as corn, wheat, cotton, rice and soybeans. This would drive down the market p*****s of these commodities and create huge surpluses in the United States. ***** products would then be exported to the poor countries of ***** world where the farmers cannot possibly compete with such low prices. So, the biggest losers of the multi-billion dollar handout (perhaps even more than the American taxpayer who would be paying for the subsidies directly) would be the poor ***** in the third world *****. The extent ***** damage to poor countries of such trade barriers is reflected in a World Bank estimate that the annual cost ***** poor countries of industrial-country trade barriers is six times the amount developed countries spend on aid. This point deserved greater emphasis than is provided ***** Mr. Hosansky in his report.

Damage to US Position ***** Global Trade Talks

Another related ***** ***** has not been sufficiently highlighted in the article is the enormous damage the boosting of subsidies would cause ***** the US position in global trade talks where America is ***** leading proponent of reducing state subsidies. This point has been mentioned as a quotation from a Sen*****te Committee member in the Issues section of the ***** but h***** ***** been ***** ********** or discussed. Supporters of farm subsidies in the U.S. *****ten ***** out to ***** ***** ***** agricultural ***** ***** to farmers in the European Union, Japan and other OECD countries. This is true. ***** is also exactly why the United States, if it had not followed their lead ***** increasing its own subsidies, could have been in a ***** ***** persuade these countries to lower their subsidies. Now it would be an uphill (almost impossible) task for the U.S. to