Yesterday I wondered out loud if President Bush’s new budget called for ending subsidies to farmers or agribusiness. Today I have an answer from an unlikely source.
I refer to Rich Lowry, of the National Review. In his syndicated column in today’s Albuquerque Journal, Lowry says the big dollars go to the big producers, 60% of the public money to 10% of the farm corporations, not the family farmer.
He also argues that the farm subsidy system didn’t work well when the New Deal invented it during the Depression and has no justification whatsoever post-Depression.
Not only that, says Lowry, it's senseless to give money to "one of the country’s more marvelously efficient industries…" And yes, he terms the subsidies "welfare."
Sometimes you gotta love those Libertarians.
I am so delighted with Lowry’s argument that it is with some reluctance that I point out:
1) Subsidies helped agribusiness get that big, marvelous and efficient, 2) so did anti-trust violations and just plain crookery (see Archer-Daniels-Midland), 3) and so did protection from Midwestern lawmakers, notably Senators Hubert Humphrey and Robert Dole, both of whom received rich rewards from the industry.
I have no reluctance, however, in speculating that Bush’s cuts in farm subsidies are window-dressing and probably won’t survive the budget process. Republicans and many Democrats, you see, buy the Libertarian jeremiads against government interference with the free market when that interference is restraint on big business. But when the interference is the helping hand – well, why slap it down? Subsidies, tax breaks and tax holidays are not interference. you see.
Conclusion: While it's fun reading Lowry's Libertarian argument against subsidizing oour most prosperous corporations, the practical effect of the Libertarian program to weaken Washington is to strengthen the corporations, not me and not you.