The Dallas Morning News | August 19, 2001 | Letters to the Editor
The $ 5.5 billion "bailout" for agriculture is a vivid illustration of the failure of U.S. farm policy ("Bush gives farmers extra relief," Aug. 14). Although the $ 5.5 billion approved by President Bush is better than the $ 7.5 billion asked for by Senate Democrats, this aid is an unnecessary burden on American taxpayers. Imagine if politicians considered falling computer prices to be as big a "crisis" as falling food prices. Would they then have the gall to propose government software subsidies? Instead of having Congress regulate, subsidize, and protect American agriculture, farm policy should be market-oriented. In fact, when President Bush receives the cold shoulder in negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, this is exactly the type of subsidy that countries such as Argentina and Brazil will point to as unfair. After all, when our leaders argue for the free market on one hand and provide billions of dollars in annual subsidies on the other, free trade becomes a sham.
Subsidies are rarely good public policy; however, the harm inflicted by this law goes far beyond the $ 5.5 billion on the price tag.
Paul J. Gessing, Policy Associate, National Taxpayers Union, Alexandria, Va.
Not handouts, help
Re: "Farm Policy - U.S. should slash run-amok agricultural subsidies," Aug. 9.
As your editorial points out, "farming is risky." Farmers who have seen crops, incomes and farms devastated by drought in five out of the last six years know that farming is risky. Although faced with rising production costs, farmers are receiving some of the lowest prices in 20 years. Texas producers who compete in the world market against highly subsidized foreign commodities know that farming is risky.
And yet, against incredible odds, year after year Texas farmers and ranchers continue to produce the food and fiber consumers need and demand. And as consumers, Americans are getting a bargain. We spend a little over 10 percent of our disposable income for food, compared with almost 15 percent in France, 18 percent in Japan and 25 percent in Mexico.
For America's affordable food supply to continue, sometimes farmers need a helping hand. That's why the recently passed aid package is important for agriculture. I can only speak for Texas farmers, but this aid package is going to help our producers all across the United States through the current rough times of drought and low prices. It is going to allow many of them to stay in business and continue farming.
But any U.S. farm aid package will remain a drop in the bucket compared with the highly subsidized agriculture of the European Union that gives twice as much financial support to its farmers as the United States. In 1999, the EU provided $ 114.5 billion in subsidies, the equivalent of 49 percent of gross farm revenue for those European countries. The comparable figure for the United States was $ 54 billion in producer support or 24 percent of gross farm income.
Texas farmers are not looking for handouts, just a little help.
Susan Combs, Commissioner, Texas Department of Agriculture, Austin
If it's good for Belo
I found it interesting that your editorial on the Agriculture Department and farm subsidies was so critical in helping the farmer, but from your newspaper's perspective I know you favor tax dollars to build and subsidize arenas. From a newspaper's point of view you will surely gain readership about the events and teams involved. This is not a direct subsidy but you will support these expenditures using government funding. So if it is good for Belo it is good for Dallas taxpayers.
Weldon Fincher, Plano
Copyright 2001 The Dallas Morning NewsThe Dallas Morning News:
