|
Brazil Is Right to Go to the WTO |
|
|
|
|
Written by Ken Cook
|
|
Thursday, 03 November 2005 |
|
Today's defeat of the Grassley-Dorgan payment limit amendment in the U.S. Senate was a shameful sellout to agribusiness by both Democrats and Republicans.
What senators who voted against Grassley-Dorgan are saying is simple: "Government farm payments of US$ 250,000 per couple year after year, with no test of need and no requirement to repay, is just not enough. Our biggest, most subsidy-dependent farm operations deserve nothing less than unlimited taxpayer handouts."
It is a sellout of not only taxpayers, but of more than 95 percent of the farmers in this country.
The amendment would have eliminated a payment cut for the vast majority of farms by shifting the burden to the country's biggest subsidized farming operations - the ones that collect hundreds of thousands of dollars, and sometimes millions - every year, as Environmental Working Group's (EWG) Farm Subsidy Database makes clear.
The amendment would have invested the savings in conservation programs that are a much better deal for most farmers and taxpayers.
The commodity lobby claims that farm bill "contracts with taxpayers" should be left untouched when that stance serves to block reform. But Big Ag hypocritically tears up those "sacred" contracts whenever they need more handouts from taxpayers.
The farm interests who argued this week that no changes in subsidy policy should be made between farm bills, in this case until 2007, are the very same interests who lobbied through five massive increases in subsidy handouts, most of which went to the biggest operations, between farm bills from 1996 through 2002.
This vote will only deepen the cynicism of the poorest nations in the world in the run up to WTO meetings next month in Hong Kong. They will be right to see in the Senate's affirmation of the status quo a disturbing unwillingness on the part of the United States to reform our bloated, wasteful farm subsidy programs in order to advance fair trade and promote economic growth in the developing world.
The only sensible course of action for other countries is to do what Brazil did - pursue WTO litigation against our subsidy programs to gain whatever negotiating leverage they can.
Ken Cook is the president of the Environmental Working Group - www.ewg.org.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
But....what about the farm sunsidies of your own country ????????
Dont you lend large amounts of money, through BNDES, to the big farmers and agrobusinesses at 10.75 % to as low as 4 % for the smallest farmers ????????
Knowing that the interest rates "regular" people have to pay, namely from 50 to 150 %....PER YEAR.......the 10.75 % rate are far bigger subsidies than the ones received in the USA !!!!!!!!!!!
It is like US farmers could borrow at a negative rate of 40 to 130 % !!!!!
No country in the world....developed or developing.....is as much subsidized as.... BRAZIL !!!!!!
So before critizing others.....why dont you look at your own numbers....and then...but then only.....talk ???????
Also the EU subsidy farm budget is far far bigger than the U.S- farm subsidies.
The USA are proposing far more subsidies cut than ther EU.....BUT you always critize the amercins....FIRST !!!!!!
You are against FREE TRADE. You want developed nations to make concessions...without reciprocal concessions on manufactured goods.
The reality is infortunately that by exporting more manufactured goods such as textile, toys, airplanes, cars, etc etc., you will create far more new jobs than those created in agriculture. Wages would be also higher, creating not only more weslth to citizens but also more taxes for the government.
On the other hand, importing more manufactured goods, such as software, computers, telecommunications, financial services, you would increase your competitivity, acceleration of new job creation, lowering your inefficiencies, lower your costs, increase your growth rate, lower your budget deficit, reduce your interests rates and your tax rates which would again put stimulus like a snowball effect !!!!!!!!!
You could then finally take care of your poverty, hunger, healthcare, housing, infrastructure, basic AND high education, democracy, justice, deficits, crimes and insecurity, etc etc.,...that would also create....millions and millions of new and better paying jobs !!!!!
INCREASED TWO WAYS TRADE (not only agriculture)..... could only be beneficial to ALL parties !!!!!!!!!!!!
Cheers