McCain vows to fight U.S. farm subsidies, tariffs

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Monday vowed to aid small farmers by targeting agricultural tariffs and subsidies doled out to agribusiness.

"If I am elected president, I will seek an end to all agricultural tariffs, and to all farm subsidies that are not based on clear need. I will veto any bill containing special-interest favors and corporate welfare in any form," McCain said in remarks prepared for delivery to the National Restaurant Association in Chicago.

McCain, an Arizona senator, said one of the biggest obstacles to opening up foreign markets to American farmers is found in Washington.

"It's right there in the Congress of the United States, in the billions of dollars in subsidies served up every five years to corporate farmers," McCain said.

"The original idea was to provide a buffer to small farmers in tough times and to assure a stable supply of food for our country. But nowadays, the small farmers have been forgotten, and instead the Congress sends a steady supply of subsidies to agribusiness," he added.

In a speech centering on economic policy, McCain said Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agree on most issues and he sharply disagrees with both of them.

But McCain zeroed in on Obama, the Democratic front-runner, saying he has a habit of talking down trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico.

I believe the American farmer, large and small would be far better off without any protective tariffs, subsidies, guaranteed payments or crop insurance.

The WSJ ran an update on tobacco farming last year, noting that all tobacco subsidies and growing restrictions were scrapped a few years ago. Farmers were now able to grow tobacco anywhere and anyway they chose with no taxpayer cushion, tobacco is now more profitable than ever as a result.

Just take that example and extend it over the whole damn industry and prepare to be pleasantly surprised.

Willie Nelson songs not withstanding, I like to think the American farmer can stand on his own two feet just fine if allowed to do so and does not need to be preserved at taxpayer expense like some human theme-park exhibit.

Farm subsidies are available to single family farms as well as corporate farms. This is not corporate welfare.

These subsidies are paid out to prevent over production. Over production causes prices to drop through the floor, destroying the ability for farmers to make a profit, and causing damage to the food supply.

I have mixed thoughts on these subsidies. I know some folks think corporations shouldn’t get the payments. It’s my take that if you exclude corporations, you destroy the program.

Right now we’re experiencing some shortages related to bio-fuels. This would seem to indicate that less not more subsidies are called for. I would favor an adjustment downward.

I understand where folks are coming from, when it comes to subsidies. I am not convinced that if they were totally eliminated, it would be a positive thing. It could turn out to be a devistatingly bad thing.

Amazing coming from a conservative-oriented website! I think that's a fair comment. I'm still not convinced that getting what you want here is going to provide the nirvana you desire. It could just as easily cause a significant number of farms to go under, contributing to severe food shortages and civil unrest.

Central planning cannot replicate a free market. Bureaucrats will never give us a healthy farm sector. We don’t need to be subsidizing any farm, personal or corporate. If you're addressing the Constitutionality of farm subsidies, I don't think you'd find a way to validate it based on Constitutionality. That alone is reason enough to argue against them.

And BTW, many family farms are small corporations (LLC) these days. It’s a liability thing. Fair enough, but a mere formality concerning family farms doesn't exactly meet the corporate giant status that most people are seeking to rebel against concerning this matter.

I do see farm subsidies as problematic. I do not see eradicating them all as being free from a new set of problems, that could swamp the perception that subsidies were wrong.

I appreciate your take on it.

If you can’t make money farming, then you need to find another job. When people go hungry then farm products will fetch higher prices, as they are today re rice and such, and farmers will farm, weather willing. And to smooth out the process, there’s the futures commodity markets and private crop insurance.

Food shortages causing high prices and civil unrest ? That’s what speculators are for - yes, in a capitalist society there is room for speculators.

Should some farms go under ? Yes, frankly. If they can’t pay their way and the family/corp is not willing to use their own nonfarm income to subsidize it then it shouldn’t exist. Why should the taxpayers step up to the plate ? Unemployed electrical engineers aren’t getting subsidized, and nor should Ted Turner and the less famous farmers be any less at risk.

If prople want food they’ll pay for it, one way or another. Higher prices or higher taxes - in the end, paying higher prices is cheaper and less distorting than paying bureaucrats to redistribute tax dollars to favored parties.

I would say the same thing about any industry.

The only nirvana I desire, frankly, is for people to get off the public teat and use their own ingenuity and skills to get ahead. Of course that doesn’t only apply to farms, but that’s the topic of this thread.

In general I agree with that. I will say that it concerns me that many folks don't know their arse from a hole in the ground with it comes to comparing farms to other sectors of the economy. How long have we had food subsidies? How long have we gone without food shortages? Is there any realtionship?

If you can’t make money farming, then you need to find another job. When people go hungry then farm products will fetch higher prices, as they are today re rice and such, and farmers will farm, weather willing. And to smooth out the process, there’s the futures commodity markets and private crop insurance.

Actually, it's not the higher prices that you have to worry about. It's the lower prices that should concern you. If farm subsidies are eliminated, you won't just get a bunch of farmers going out of business. You'll also get a bunch of shortages as production levels tank. Sure it's supply and demand, but it's a very delayed type of supply and demand. You can't turn production on and off at the drop of a hat. There is a lag in the time of percieved need and the farming community production.

One year too many people plant corn and bumper crops are the norm. There is an over abundance of corn and when it hits the market, farmers can't even get their production costs out of the crop. When this happens, they can't afford to plant crops the next year. If they can suck up for one year, what happens to corn the next year. Nobody plants it and then you have a problem with the price of corn going through the roof. This isn't just an issue of corn, all the farm commodities are subject to this dynamic.

If we're talking about manufacturing widgets, I don't really care if I can't purchase a new television television right now. If we're talking about where dinner comes from, you're talking my language.

I am not convinced that farm bank tactics are all they are cracked up to be, but neither am I convinced that eliminating them would be the positive you think it would be.

Food shortages causing high prices and civil unrest ? That’s what speculators are for - yes, in a capitalist society there is room for speculators.

Who said there shouldn't be speculators?

Should some farms go under? Yes, frankly. If they can’t pay their way and the family/corp is not willing to use their own nonfarm income to subsidize it then it shouldn’t exist. Why should the taxpayers step up to the plate ? Unemployed electrical engineers aren’t getting subsidized, and nor should Ted Turner and the less famous farmers be any less at risk.

Well as much as I would like to join you in thinking that an unemployed electrical engineer is as important to our survival as the food supply, I'm going to have to defer to the food supply. And when it comes to which farmers get subsidies, I'm thinking they're not all Ted Turner.

If prople want food they’ll pay for it, one way or another. Higher prices or higher taxes - in the end, paying higher prices is cheaper and less distorting than paying bureaucrats to redistribute tax dollars to favored parties.

Paying higher prices isn't the concern here bud. Having something to buy at any price is.

I would say the same thing about any industry.

Food isn't just any industry. Humans need water and then food to survive.

I am not convinced that eliminating subsidies would level out production and create a better situation. If you can explain with a little more detail why you think it would, I'd be willing to listen.

Just telling me subsidies are wrong doesn't accomplish much for me. I don't like the idea either. I'm just not convinced yet that something better is out there.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.