Thursday, May 15, 2008

Barack Obama: Corporate and Special Interest Tool, and a Fiscally Irresponsible One At That

While he's not the only one, it seems that Barack Obama rather likes wealthy farmers. In fact, he likes them so much, that he supports the recent incarnation of the Farm Bill, which is projected to cost $300 billion over the next five years. In this statement, he asserts:
"To help address this, we need to stand up to the special interests, bring Republicans and Democrats together, and pass the Farm Bill immediately. And while we're at it, let's strengthen the Emergency Food Assistance Program, the Food Stamp Program and the Commodity Supplemental Food Programs and launch additional anti-hunger initiatives to help ensure that no American goes hungry."
Jacob Sullum in this article lists the litany of special interest boondoggles aboard this gravy train. They include a $170 million earmark for the salmon industry, special tax breaks for racehorse owners (of all people), and "marketing aid" for fruit and vegetable growers. Sure, the bill denies subsidies to " individual farmers earning more than $750,000 a year and couples earning more than $1.5 million." But as Richard Posner notes, the vast majority of the subsidies will go to the 10 largest farm enterprises, which are (I assume) incorporated.

Farm subsidies are grossly inefficient. Sullum cites an economists' estimate that Farm Subsidies cost $25 billion in taxpayer funding and $12 billion in higher food prices. A CATO study found that the opportunity cost of farm subsidies over the last two decades is $1.7 trillion (with a t). Meanwhile, we are protecting U.S. agriculture against foreign competition, ensuring that lower-middle income consumers are saddled with even higher food costs than would otherwise be the case.

It's one thing for Obama to support a policy as stupid and corporatist as the Farm Bill. It's quite another for him to assert that supporting it somehow is an "affront" to special interests, when it clearly isn't. How in the world anyone could consider this to be indicative of "change" is beyond me.

No comments: