[mikenola]

I dunno Willie, I'm split on this one.

On one hand, I understand Bush's reasoning on the wheat and steel tarrifs from a national security perspective.

On the other, I can see negative consequences of tarriffs on ancillary industries. We here in New Orleans are taking a big bite in the butt from the steel tarrif, due to the lost off traffic through the port of New Orleans.

Seems to me though that farm subsidies are another issue entirely. Considering the massive amount of cash piped into these programs, i think we are doing a disservice to the agriculture industry, by giving individual farmers little incentive to minimize costs and become competitive.

Bottom line, I'd go with using tarrifs to discourage dumping, but scale back the subsidy program, which you gotta admit has been a vote getter for many administrations.

[Willie Green]

On one hand, I understand Bush's reasoning on the wheat and steel tarrifs from a national security perspective.
On the other, I can see negative consequences of tarriffs on ancillary industries.

G.W. Bush's application of protective, targetted tariffs on behalf of special interests is an abomination. We would be better off with a relatively low, flat-rate "revenue tariff" levied across the board on ALL imported goods, as preferred by our Founding Fathers.

[Willie Green]

i think we are doing a disservice to the agriculture industry, by giving individual farmers little incentive to minimize costs and become competitive.

You wrongly assume that individual farmers have no incentive to minimize costs. The exact opposite is true. Farming is a fiercely competitive industry. The "feast or famine" cycle previously mention arises when TOO MANY farmers are forced out of business due to the harsh reality of competition. This is what would lead to food shortages, hunger and skyrocketing prices in subsequent years, especially in conjunction with a season of adverse growing conditions.