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, we are then often stuck with foreign aid payments to help those that cannot support themselves through their traditional agriculture. Sugar farmers in third world countries, being denied entry into our market, cost the American taxpayers once again.
Disruption of markets doesn't only occur outside our own borders, however. Within our borders the problems caused by interference in the markets hurts farmers, as well as taxpayers and consumers. Since our government primarily subsidizes grain and soybeans, the incentive is for all farmers to enter those markets. Recent biofuel subsidies further increase these distortions. Where dryland farmers in Nebraska struggle to grow corn, farmers in Ohio, where there is plenty of rain to grow anything, compete with them for the same products. Without subsidies the market incentives would be such that farmers in wetter states would grow more financially lucrative crops based on market demand. Because of government interference in those markets however, the incentive is to go after the easy money of government payments rather than make sound business decisions.
As a taxpayer and consumer, I resent the fact that my tax money is going to increase the cost of putting food on my table. Coming from a farming family of many generations, I resent the fact that the government encourages those that should be in other businesses to leach off of the government weal. And, as a hardworking American, I resent the idea that my tax dollars are being taken to further enrich corporate fat-cats.