by Keith Hamburger

Created on: May 01, 2008   Last Updated: January 06, 2009

The business of farming has become so distorted by government interference as to be highly unfair to farmers and consumers alike. Subsidies, regulations and tariffs force everyone, as consumers and taxpayers, to pay far more for the food they need and encourage farmers to act in a manner that is contrary to their own best interests.

Subsidies are paid for by tax dollars and predominately go to the wealthiest agricultural corporations. Some 45% of all farm subsidies go to the 17 largest farming organizations in the United States. While amounting to less than $50 per person in recent years this still amounts to a transfer of nearly $200 for a family of four to wealthy corporate interests. According to the Washington Post hundreds of billions even goes to people who do no farming whatsoever. There is no justification for taking money from hardworking Americans to support wealthy landowners in any way.

Even worse, for those of us who have to eat, are the purported goals of these subsidies. The express purpose of this transfer of wealth is said to be to increase the price of farmer's crops and increase the cost of food at the market. Not only are we being taxed to give money to corporate billionaires, the purpose of that tax is to make us pay more for food.

Tariffs and import quotas cost consumers even more. The prime example of this are the protectionist tariffs and quotas for sugar import. Sugar production in the United States supports fewer than 150,000 jobs, which are what these restrictions and tariffs are intended to protect. And over half of those jobs are from just three major corporations. But it has been estimated that this protectionism results in a near doubling of sugar prices to US consumers. This increased cost, paid by every American, is once again going to support wealthy businessmen.

Beyond the cost of sugar protectionism to consumers is the ultimate cost to the economy of this country. Since processed foods made of sugar aren't subject to the same restrictions, candy companies are fleeing the country. Over the past couple of years, for just a couple of major examples, Lifesavers left Michigan for Canada and Brachs relocated from Chicago to Mexico. The loss of these jobs, and others like them, offsets any potential benefits of protecting the agricultural jobs.

The distortions in the world markets through such protectionism cost American taxpayers in yet another way. When we limit the importation of products, such as sugar, from developing countries,

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>