Talk Elections

Actual Farm Subsidies Abolition Bill


Whereas, F.L. 9-13 "Farm Subsidies Abolition Act" did not abolish farm subsidies:
1. Sections I, II, IV, and V of the Farm Subsidies Abolition Act are repealed.
2. All farm subsidies are hereby abolished, effective from Fiscal Year 2007.
___________________________________________________________

Sponsor: Sen. MasterJedi

What would be socio-economic impact on farmers and their families should this Bill pass and be signed into Law? Will they, by and large, stay in business or be thrown to the wolves?

If I can conclude that the gains more than offset the costs, I'll support this Bill. At the end of the day, farmers should be able to stand on their own two feet and not be reliant on government subsidies

'Hawk'

Read the debate from the original bill Dave.

Still waiting for the usual "ending farm subsidies would bring apocalypse" rant.
If y'all really want to contribute to end poverty in the third world, vote for this bill.

I don't think agribusiness get much or any subsidies anymore Bono.

ENDING FARM SUBSIDIES WOULD BRING THE APOCALYPSE!  JESUS WILL ONLY SAVE SUPPORTERS OF FARM SUBSIDIES!

Indeed, I shall :)

'Hawk'

From that statement, Mr Secretary, I can only assume that federal government subsidies for Atlasian farmers must somehow contribute to poverty in the Third World. Is it your opinion or hard fact? How would this Bill if passed contribute towards ending poverty in the Third World, I'd be interested :) to know

'Hawk'

That is correct.

Farmers need not fear that they will lose money in the market. The farm subsidy policy of the government essentially ensures that farmers will make a profit on whatever they produce. As a result, farmers tend not to restrict their production; they attempt to grow as many crops as possible. The supply of crops by far outstrips the demand for crops in Atlasia/the United States. The excess output, then, is dumped in "Third World" countries at extremely low prices--so low, in fact, that the local farmers cannot compete. Since the local farmers cannot compete, they remain in poverty.

Wouldn't it be better to phase them out gradually?

If you are going to get rid of them, yes. But read the thread on the bill this is trying to get rid of.

That's Clause One, look at Clause 2 of this bill.

I'd actually prefer getting rid of these subsidies over time also. I don't support the idea of subsidies but we can't just end the programs in just one year. If my colleagues are open to the idea, I'd introduce an amendment phasing out the farm subsidies.

That would be great Phil.

Now I'm of the belief that people should be self-reliant (hence, my past legislative efforts to diminish :) dependency on welfare). I think a phased gradual withdrawal of subsidies would be a fair compromise then something so sudden as the President has proposed

Of course, there are a range of options. Would it, for example, be by 10% over 10 years, 20% over five years or 25% over four years?

However, the effects of subsidy withdrawal could have a negative impact on the living standards of many farmers and their families. While I suspect many would be able to weather such fall-out in that subsidy cuts may just have a negligible impact, others may genuinely face hardship. So I would be favorable to a proportion of each phased cut being allocated to a Hardship Fund to help farmers with the transition from having subsidies to having no subsidies. Perhaps 25% of the proceeds from the cut, which could be used to provide transitional relief to those farmers and, indeed, farming communities worst affected

Naturally, we should be looking at ways to curb 'excessive' expenditure given theat we have more money going out than we have coming in but I really don't think we should be considering anything too radical that could have a potentially devastating impact on farming communities, which is why I favor the phased withdrawal of subsidies and provision of transitional relief

There is much to be said for doing things slowly and painlessly

Of course, in the long run, should a phased withdrawal of federal subsidies to Atlasian farmers have a positive impact on farmers in the Third World that too will be of benefit to both us and them. It encourages self-reliance on their part and reduces dependency on us whether through government aid or charitable giving

Furthermore, I think Atlasian farmers should be encouraged to rear goats :) because for Atlasia to contribute to assisiting Third World families by providing them with goats would be much more effective then handing over dollars to their corrupt rulers in the war on global poverty

'Hawk'

Amendment proposal (changes in bold italics):



I think a four year notice for the repeal is a bit more appropriate. Our farmers will be thankful for this at least.  :)

The thread in which the original bill was debated and modified is here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=29934.0

The final bill can be found here: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Farm_Subsidies_Abolition_Act

Please read both before debating things any further; this is another issue in which we've moved beyond the way things are in the real world.

After having read through the debate and the bill, I can say that I am satisified with things as they are currently in Atlasia and will not be voting for this bill. :)

I hereby open up the vote on the amendment in bold and italics below. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Aye

Aye on the amendment, but I'm still voting against this bill. :P

Exactly.
Plus, it also effectively closes the domestic market to foreign farmers, espeically those form the third world.

Yup

Aye

I think we should gear farm subsidies to keeping production within a certain quota, so that overproduction isn't as rampant as it is (or may be, perhaps when a GM is appointed s/he can tell us :)) now; it's certainly responsible for a good deal of the obesity-related health problems in Atlasia.

;) Read the original bill discussion again - Atlasian farm policy is not currently the same as American farm policy.

Well, I know that we've eliminated subsidies to all but smaller farmers, but we don't have any information about whether they're still overproducing :P

Aye

Well this is an improvement on the original Bill and for that I'll give the Senator credit; and, although, I think it could be improved further, I'll vote  Aye

I also need to give more thought to the points raised by Senator WMS as well the possibility of a further amendment more along the lines of my previous comments

'Hawk'

This amendment has passed.

With the agribusinesses out of the subsidy picture, I rather doubt it :P

I hereby open up the final vote on this bill. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Aye

Aye

Aye

Unfortunately, I didn't have time :( to introduce a more comprehensive amendment, which would have proposed phased annual cuts in subsidies from FY 2007 to FY 2010 (possibly even beyond) with a proportion of these cuts/savings being allocated to Hardship Funds to assist those farmers and farming communities worst affected by the withdrawal of subsidies. Postponing any cuts at all until 2010 sees no the Treasury make no tangible savings whatsoever in the meantime

Therefore, I  abstain  on this Bill

'Hawk'

nay

Nay.

Nope

Current Vote Tally Three days left to vote.

3 Aye (MasterJedi, Keystone Phil, Bacon King)
3 Nay (EarlAW, WMS, Ilikeverin)
1 Abstain (Dave Hawk)

Nay

Nay.

This bill has enough votes to fail. Senators now have 24 hours t ochange their votes.

With 3 Ayes, 5 Nays and 1 Abstention this bill has failed.