Wolfowitz says cuts in agriculture subsidies needed

[maddezmom]

By Lesley Wroughton
9 minutes ago



BOBO-DIOULASSO, Burkina Faso (Reuters) - New World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz said on Tuesday the key to helping Africa's poor cotton growers was to cut the subsidies paid to U.S. and European agriculture producers.


On a tour of a cotton-processing factory in Burkina Faso, Wolfowtiz said the World Bank would have a "strong voice" at the Doha trade talks to make a case for wealthy nations to reduce agricultural subsidies worldwide.

The subsidies cut into revenues of impoverished countries like Burkina Faso, one of Africa's biggest cotton growers.

But on his first visit to the continent since taking the reins of the development lender two weeks ago, Wolfowitz did not indicate if he would personally weigh in on the matter as a former influential insider of the Bush administration and the Pentagon's second-ranking official.

Developing countries complain they are pushed out of the market by the subsidies rich nations pay their cotton farmers, and argue the huge subsidies to U.S. cotton producers -- which at $4 billion are larger than the whole Burkina Faso economy -- are the cause of a collapse in cotton prices.

~snip~
more: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050615/pl_nm/africa_wolfowitz_dc_4

[Rainscents]

1. I wonder what the red staters of Bush supporters think of this.

I'm sure, they're not going to be happy camper!

[mom cat]

11. Fins should play really great in the farm states!

[AspenRose]

35. What's the matter with Kansas, indeed.

eom

[Erika]

2. Now tell me W is not world corporatist king with his pawns

placed in world control.

American farmers feel sold out yet, you know all those in the red states that get the ag subsidies?

[Rainscents]

3. Well, let them eat their own now!!!

:popcorn:

[Erika]

7. Exactly - They played a role in this country's demise.

[Roland99]

4. Hmm...just what is ol' Wolfie up to now?

[lumpy]

12. Just what is Wolfie up to now?

My first thought upon reading this also.

[Maple]

5. Well he's right on that

World governments have pushed, and been pushed, for years to get rid of the subsidies. It's been a long slow haul.

Wolfowitz is a johnny-come-lately to this one.

[XemaSab]

6. Wow!

I think we just turned some states right there.

Let the reich wing fight ag subsidies and see how quickly all the red counties in California turn pure blue.

[leesa]

30. You mean those Cadillac Welfare Farmers?

[XemaSab]

32. them's the ones

the people who are paid to pollute the land, air, and water.

cotton is one of the top 4 water sucking crops in california, along with alfalfa, rice, and irrigated pasture.

screw cotton.

[acmejack]

8. Wolfowitz is now in a position to cause us much distress

As the world's largest debtor, th world bank can dictate a lot of policy. Check out what they have done to many of the other debtors around the globe. Pain to the people! They installed him there for a specific purpose.

[Daphne08]

9. "...cut the subsidies paid to U.S.

and European agriculture producers..."

Yeah, that's going to happen.

Does Wolfowitz ever read the newspapers?

[Erika]

10. Bush wanted ag subsidies reduced in his first term but

backed off before the election so he could sucker in their votes. And the red state suckers fell for it.

[karynnj]

13. What's weird is that he is partially right

Much as I would rather totally disagree with the creep, I think the following may be correct.

The US and European government subsidies do make our cotton unfairly cheap, but if these subsidies are slowly removed then the US and Europe would find that their production of cotton is non-economic. However, there is a solution - if we gradually lower the subsidies in return for the developing countries improving their labor conditions and wages, some kind of fairer equilibrium could be reached. The winners: the US government, which would pay less in subsidies and the third world workers whose live would improve. Also, to a lesser degree the US cotton workers who keep jobs that would always be at risk if subsidies were cut for budgetary reasons. The losers: The companies that have benefited from artificially low cotton prices and consumers who will now have to pay more for cotton goods.

[Erika]

14. The few small private companies here will be bought out by

the global corporations. You're right in that the third world economies will improve to some degree, but the losers will be the small companies and their employees. With Bush's policies, the globalists will employ illegals who will work for half the price and benefits.

[karynnj]

21. I was making a conjecture of how it could be made better

assuming good government Like if we had Kerry, who has pushed for environmental and labor provisions on NAFTA and other agreements.

I agree that with Bush, global companies will be the big winners. Workers here and in the third world will be worse off.

[PaulaFarrell]

34. Wrong

The majority of agricultural subsidies in the US and EU go to the largest farms, often run by corporations. These subsidies let them buy out the smaller farms who can't compete with the economies of scale. I can't predict the long-term effect on small farmers but I think corporations will be the biggest losers. Which is probably why Bush won't cut subsidies very much - I think a similar think happened with Clinton and the sugar industry. Maybe if corpoations find farming not so profitable without subsidies, they will bail out and the price of agricultural land will drop, making it more affordable to small farmers.

[humus]

15. cotton subsidies are illegal

http://www.newfarm.org/depts/op_ed/0904/subsidy.shtml

An ill-fated attempt to break this cycle of overproduction was adopted in the 1996 farm bill. Unfortunately, “decoupling”—the policy to gradually eliminate payments until we got the government out of production agriculture—forgot about the original purpose of U.S. farm policy. When income stability disappeared with dropping prices a few years later, the old system of subsidies came right back bigger than ever in the 2002 farm bill.

Now something has happened that has agriculture groups of every stripe looking for a new approach. In a landmark ruling this summer, the World Trade Organization affirmed a challenge from Brazil that most U.S. cotton subsidies are illegal. Driven by hopes for export markets, U.S. commodity groups had pushed for a level playing field for free trade by reducing the various financial advantages countries give to their own producers. Now, those same agriculture groups seem surprised that their own commodity subsidies (even the direct payments) are being challenged as unfair by other countries. Brazil argued that the subsidies led to overproduction, U.S. dumping (selling below the cost of production) on global markets, and suppressed prices, thus giving the U.S. an unfair share of the world market. While the decision will likely be appealed and has already influenced new trade negotiations, it nevertheless brings into question the future of subsidies for corn and other commodities

What is suddenly very much in demand is an alternative policy that could contribute to basic farm income, but without driving overproduction of commodities. The WTO designates such allowable subsidies as being in their ‘green box.’ Of course, we already have the essence of such a policy in the Conservation Security Program. When fully implemented, this new program will be a green payments program that offers farmers willing to meet high conservation standards a yearly paycheck in return for producing conservation benefits such as clean water, healthy soil, and wildlife habitat. In effect, we will pay for conservation produced instead of commodities produced.

Powerful farm and commodity groups are sensing a real threat to subsidies and are looking for options. As Bob Stallman, President of the American Farm Bureau Federation, testified recently, “International trade issues and budget pressures may cause a future evaluation of the means of supporting agriculture. The conservation programs authorized under Title II of the farm bill, which fit within the ‘green box’ of the World Trade Organization Agriculture Agreement as non-trade distorting programs, are important to these policy considerations” (U.S. House Agriculture Committee’s conservation subcommittee, June 15, 2004).

It is not too early to begin shaping the discussion for the next farm bill in 2007. It will take time to build a comfort level, support and detailed proposals for green payments. The Minnesota Project intends to be there every step of the way.

[tabasco]

16. It's about time to cut those red states off the dole.

Let's hear them squeal some more about big government.

[are_we_united_yet]

17. Don't worry red states

Your prayers will help make up the difference.

[not systems]

18. The broken clock is right for once...

farm subsidies punish the farmers from poor countries and
subsidies environmental destruction, poor land use and the
over consumption of unhealthy food.

[Erika]

22. So why do you want the subsidies given to the poor

and taken away from American farmers or am I not understanding something?

[not systems]

24. Farmers in poor countries ...

have to sell into the world market, what they grow is
priced against food grown in rich countries with government
subsidies.

They also compete for their own domestic sales with food
subsidized by rich countries.

This destroys the ability of the poor farmers of the world to
keep farming and makes these countries dependent on outside
food production which make them more vulnerable to outside
control and future food shortages.

Subsidies also contribute to bad farm practices here.

[not systems]

25. Maybe I'm miss reading what you wrote but...

the simple answer is I want a better life for the poor
of the world.

To the extent that our policies consolidate economic power
into the hands of transnational corporations and away from
the individual farmers the lives of the poor become less
autonomous and they are more easily exploited in sweat shops
and sex trafficking and the like.

I think screwing the poor to help some republican farmer
raise money for his next campaign contribution is bad.

[Erika]

27. Our rural areas are becoming the poor of the world n/t

[not systems]

31. Blame that on the rise of big Agra buisness...

1 or 2 generation's ago family farms were a reality
now the ones that remain are bloated republican welfare
queens.

I grew up in a rural area and they voted for it and
deserve what they get.

Sorry.

[converted_democrat]

19. Yea, I think they should cut them too!!!!!!!

You want to see the red states spin blue so fast it hurts? You want to see the wrath of rednecks everywhere? Make the cuts!! Make em now!!

[applegrove]

20. He obviously didn't run this by Rove. Finally - a little dose of reality

for the neocon cabal. Pull up a lawn chair. :popcorn:

[ElectroPrincess]

23. The Midwest is going BLUE (Democratic) - Bank on it!

They're swearing out in the corn fields of Nebraska and the plains of South Dakota. You shouldn't piss off the hard working family farmer.

Let's warmly welcome the good people from The Heartland. :patriot:

[Iowa]

26. Hey ElectroPrincess!

I'm from Iowa and I consider myself in a blue area. Take a look at this map. It is broken down by county, but this map goes even further. Since there are a lot of counties where only a slim majority voted Republican, just going by county doesn't quite provide the full picture. One way to allow for this is to use to use red, blue, & shades of purple to indicate percentages of voters by county. A whole different picture of 2004 emerges. As you can see, some areas in the heartland are bluer than some areas on the coasts.

[ElectroPrincess]

28. Thank you for the education Iowa! Yes, it's wrong to stereotype ...

But methinks (hopes!) Wolfie's latest stunt will make more of the Midwest turn to purple or blue.

Presently I'm in a RED section of Virginia. In fact, I determined it much better "damage control" to ask for the Republican Primary Ballot today. My dear husband admitted that he just couldn't bring himself to say "Republican" and voted with the less contentious Democratic Ballot. He exclaimed, "No you didn't do wrong but I just couldn't DO THAT ... to ask for a <shiver> Republican Ballot."

Guess we all (Democratic Souls) do our part. :hi:

[Iowa]

29. I sure do think you're right!

Wolfie is doing his part to turn more farmland blue. I just hope he keeps it up.

My elderly Dad is one of very few Democrat farmers in an Irish/Catholic farming neighborhood where there are a few others. Growing up we always viewed ourselves as Irish/Catholic/Democrat - and all three were inexorably intertwined and part of who we were. I've had a couple of sisters who married Republicans and went over to the dark side themselves, but for the most part we've all remained true to our heritage. But we're in a minority, I'm afraid. Most farmers are Republican, and its the towns around the farms who produce most of the blue, sad to say.

[catmandu57]

33. They tried to cut farm subsidies earlier this year

They were looking to claw back some money from somewhere, but the red ass farmers and their lobby's let poor ole georgie* know that if they didn't get their welfare checks, then there was going to be hell to pay.
So they backed off, now it sounds like they want to go for deep water again. I've lived around farmers for the best part of my life, I don't hold them in very high regard.
They're lemmings who will follow whoever is the biggest farmer in the county, against their self interest. If ole joe blow says he's voting for the repiggie, then by god they'll vote repiggie too.
After the election ole joe blow gets his payoff and the lemmings get suicided, I've watched it happen time and again.
The thing is now they want to cut ole joe off at the balls too.

[Toots]

36. What do Americans use cotton for anyway?

We have closed all of our textile mills and buy all cotton goods from China now. It would not hurt the USA that much but it would hurt some other countries and that is the goal. We must keep everyone in line. It is just another form of intimidation and that is the one thing these guys truly excel at.

[LuPeRcALiO]

37. right, let's cut subsidies and sign CAFTA

and screw American and African cotton farmers.

[lumpy]

38. Lets take care of our own

We have lost so much of our home industries. Manufacturing and farming. We used to have the capacity to be self sustaining. The US have been weakened by the greed that exists in the corporate hogs.

[LuPeRcALiO]

40. That's exactly what they're doing.

Taking care of their fellow shareholders. Everybody else can get screwed.

[Darranar]

43. I think the plan is to KEEP subsidies and sign CAFTA...

which would just screw Central American farmers, and by extension, Central American workers - reducing the cost of the exploited labor.

I don't think Wolfowitz is following the script here.

[LuPeRcALiO]

46. Central American farmers get screwed anyway.

With no competition they'll be the only ones left who can sell their cotton, but they'll have to sell it at prices set by U.S. buyers, who won't have to worry about tariffs OR labor laws. That's the beauty of CAFTA.

[redqueen]

39. Sure... cut the subsidies to huge corporate farms...

not small family farms.

Watch as he does the opposite.

Waking up yet, family farmers?

[JDPriestly]

41. The mountains of Austria

I'd like to see Wolfowitz try to eke out a living in the peaks of the Austrian Alps without agricultural subsidies. It is the people who live in those mountains and who maintain small farms there that keep the mountains -- and the water -- and the hillsides -- and the forests -- and the wildlife they love healthy and safe. The European subsidies for small farms that are not economically feasible is also a means of preserving their cultural heritage. Wolfowitz would not be able to understand any of that because he has only materialist values. He does not understand or appreciate human relationships (culture) and nature.

[Darranar]

42. Good. May his advice be followed. n/t

[BiggJawn]

44. And Chimpy was talking at the FFA kids yesterday...

"Future Farmers of America" Should be "Future Agribusiness Facility Managers of Amerika"

"You-uns is th' FUTURE of Murrikan Angri-bidness! Now, mah hand-picked choice t'head-up th' World bank sez we should cut yer subsidies...Now, hear me out, that ain't such a bad idea, an' ah'll tellya why...

Now, where d'ya 'spose them subsidies come from in th' FIRST place? Yep, they is TAXES! Now, iffn Ah CUT the subsidies, Ah kin CUT YOUR TAXES!!! An Ah'll be able to give ya back MORE'N yer OWN Munny!!!!
An' then you kin INVEST it with Mah campaign supporters, an' they-uns kin BLOW it all on parties, thus leavin' ya with Squat. But Ah won't give a dam, 'cuz Ah'll be DAID by then!"

[fob]

45. which at $4 billion are larger than the whole Burkina Faso economy

Hmmm, $4 billion where have I heard that number before? Oh yeah, it's bush*s MONTHLY spending on the Iraq Debacle (Iraqle?)!