Posted on 10/09/2005 12:44:38 PM PDT by LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will tell key trading partners on Monday it is prepared to make "ambitious" domestic farm subsidy cuts if other countries make similar concessions on tough farm trade issues that stand in the way of a new global trade deal, an industry official said.
The expected U.S. offer follows weeks of consultations between U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman and key lawmakers, including the chairmen of the House of Representatives and Senate agriculture committees who have given the chief U.S. negotiator detailed instructions on what must be in a deal to win congressional approval.
Portman is carrying the fruits of those discussions to a U.S.-hosted meeting of top trade officials from the European Union, Brazil, India and a dozen other key World Trade Organization members in Zurich. He is expected to outline broad details at a news conference on Monday in the Swiss city.
"I have heard that it will be an ambitious offer on domestic supports," said one industry official who has been following the internal U.S. deliberations and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the talks.
"Ambassador Portman will take steps to help forge a consensus and to move the negotiations forward," Christin Baker, a spokeswoman for Portman, said.
Washington has been under pressure for weeks to come forward with a plan for cutting domestic farm subsidies -- one of the three main areas of the farm trade talks. However, U.S. negotiators have been loathe to move without more progress on how much other countries would cut their farm tariffs.
"Our basic premise was that we needed to make more progress on market access. The good news is we are getting into the issues, people are talking about numbers. And that has been heartening for us," a U.S. trade official told reporters on Friday, speaking on condition he not be identified.
Asked if this meant the United States would now offer ideas on cutting domestic supports, the official said: "We are going to be getting specific. We want to see them getting specific ... We're going to work with (other countries) and try to do it in the most constructive way."
CUTS PROPOSED
The EU has proposed a 65 percent cut in spending on its own "trade-distorting" farm subsidies and a 55 percent cut for the United States. That would trim U.S. spending to $8.5 billion from $19.1 billion and the EU to about $27.6 billion from around $80 billion -- although in reality some money probably would be shifted away from crop-specific farm programs to others such as conservation that have less impact on trade.
The United States contends that any cut of more than 10 percent to 20 percent would significantly constrain its current farm programs. It also argues that Brussels and Tokyo should be required to make bigger cuts since they spend far more on trade-distorting farm programs than Washington does.
U.S. trade officials were uncertain as late as last week how far they could go in offering to cut farm subsidies.
American farmers, who played a big role in congressional approval of a 1994 world trade pact, have signaled they will only support a new trade deal that cuts farm subsidies if they get significant new export opportunities in return.
"Whatever proposal (Portman) puts down, it better meet those ideals or he's going to be negotiating outside his ability to pass it," a House aide said.
Ultimately, "it's not about the U.S. proposal. It's about the deal. That's what matters," the aide said.
"Politispeak 101"
Two things on my mind about this:
#1 - The US farmers are just as addicted to farm subsidies as any welfare junkie. Without the subsidies (under current market conditions) the majority of US farms WILL go out of business.
#2 - Much like every other international "agreement" that is suppose to involve the US, the US has to give up more than anyone else. The EU subsidises their farms to a level that is obsurd - and they don't do it so the farmers can "make it", they do it to give them an unfair trade leverage. The EU farm subsidies represent several times the US total - yet they are still going to have several times the US subsidy total.
I do believe that US farmers could make it without subsidies (if we can get them off the public teat) - IF, and ONLY if, they are allowed to compete on a level playing field.
When you have South American countries subsidising their farmers, as well as allowing farming practices that are not allowed here - including chemicals that are banned in the US, when you have the Euros subsidising their farmers massively, then how can the US farmer compete?
How do you come up with that from this:
The EU has proposed a 65 percent cut in spending on its own "trade-distorting" farm subsidies and a 55 percent cut for the United States. That would trim U.S. spending to $8.5 billion from $19.1 billion and the EU to about $27.6 billion from around $80 billion -- although in reality some money probably would be shifted away from crop-specific farm programs to others such as conservation that have less impact on trade.
That’s a corruption of how it “should” work. The job of subsidies is not to ensure foreign market penetration. As long as we’re not being poached by foreign subsidies, ours should end. I’m sure there are billions of bribes funneling through DC to keep them in place.
Protectionists don't like to be labelled as protectionists any more than Democrats like being called the L-word. I'm surprised he didn't say anything about the threat to the great American "family farm", when the reality is that these are probably large businesses that live off these subsidies. Can't wait until the day my car is running off of fuel made entirely from corn. Maybe if oil quadruples in price a few years from now, ADM will finally revolutionize the energy industry!
Makes you hate the Senate. A large number of farm states, with small anti-trade populations, have too much influence in that body.
I suspect that the EU's not happy about paying 80 billion a year with 10% unemployment in France and Germany while China and others pick away at their industries. Remember how we spent the Soviets into ending that arms race? I doubt that point is missed by our Cold War Russian expert Secretary of State. Maybe we can hold tough and narrow by more than half.
Hmmm. I am quite curious to know how many farmers that you personally know who are "addicted to their subsidies." The ones I know and work for aren't living high on the hog.
Think a little harder about why so much money would be funneled towards subsidizing. Corporations should come to mind, not my neighbor in the field on his tractor.
A couple of points from an older article you might read:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1763.cfm
"Eligibility for farm subsidies is determined by crop, not by income or poverty standards. Growers of corn, wheat, cotton, soybeans, and rice receive more than 90 percent of all farm subsidies: Growers of nearly all of the 400 other domestic crops are completely shut out of farm subsidy programs. Further skewing these awards, the amounts of subsidies increase as a farmer plants more crops.
Thus, large farms and agribusinesses--which not only have the most land, but also are the nation's most profitable farms because of their economies of scale--receive the largest subsidies. Meanwhile, family farmers with few acres receive little or nothing in subsidies. Farm subsidies have evolved from a safety net for poor farmers to America's largest corporate welfare program.""A glance at those who received farm subsidies in 2002 shows that many of them do not need federal dollars. Table 2 shows the 12 Fortune 500 companies that received farm subsidies in 2002. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance's $2.3 million farm subsidy payment was by far the largest among these companies. The farm subsidies granted to these Fortune 500 companies since 1995 are--on average--70 times larger than those granted to the median farmer.""Table 3 lists the nine Members of Congress who received farm subsidies in 2002. Since 1995, these lawmakers have received subsidies averaging 46 times those received by the median farmer. Five of the nine lawmakers also sit on the House or Senate agriculture committees overseeing these programs.""Table 4 details other notable farm subsidy recipients, including:
* David Rockefeller, the former chairman of Chase Manhattan and grandson of oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, who received 99 times more subsidies than the median farmer;
* Scottie Pippen, professional basketball star, who received 39 times more subsidies than the median farmer;
* Ted Turner, the 25th wealthiest man in America, who received 38 times more subsidies than the median farmer; and
* Kenneth Lay, the ousted Enron CEO and multi-millionaire, who received 3 times more subsidies than the median farmer."
My use of the term "addicted" was meant in the EXACT same way when used towards folks who only live off welfare.
Farmers at this point don't know how to exist without the subsidies. PERIOD. The farmer my Father-In-Law works for, if you count all the properties they farm, get an incredible amount from the government.
There was a release of such data a couple of years ago. All you had to do was go to a web site (don't remember it now) and look up farms/farmers in your county. Sometimes you had to know all the names the farmer operated under (often family land/leased land/partner's land/etc. are listed seperately).
As far as living "high on the hog", it really depends on what you mean...
If that means they live in a VERY nice home, with brand new high-dollar vehicles every year, and two or three teenagers with brand new vehicles, then maybe they are... I guess it depends on your point of view.
YEs, htere are farmers who live from check-to-check. But then again - why?
What amazes me - crop prices for crops around here have remained at historic lows (with a few surprise spikes in soy beans a time or two because of crop problems in South America). Yet the products made from said crops are not necessarily cheaper.
I'm not sure how many farmers are going to make it this year - with record fuel prices cutting into the thin margin many work on.
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.