Farm Subsidies Abolition Bill

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This is something I do know a fair bit about and all that. Too tired right now though.
Will post some stuff tomorrow

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The issue of farm subsidies is a complex one but, unlike most other complex issues, tends only to be seen in black and white terms for reasons that I've never been able to understand.
There's also a lot of misinformation, misunderstanding and general confusion as to what farm subsidies are, what they are for and who gets them.
First off, not all farms actually get government subsidies. According the most recent set of statistics I've been able to find, just 33% of all farms in Atlasia get government subsidies. There's also a huge amont of regional diversity; about 78% of farms in North Dakota get subsidies, only 2% of farms in Hawaii do. Unsuprisingly it's wheat or cornbelt states that have the highest %'s, and states with agricultural sector based around fruit and so on, tend to have much lower numbers.

The scandal of the current subsidies setup is this; the bottom 80% of subsidy recipients get, on average, $768 a year. The top 10% of recipients (and these are invariably large, profitable farms) get on average $34,424 a year. Now, this is wrong, I hope you all understand that, and something has to be done about it.
Is simply abolishing all farm subsidies the best way to do this? No. Of course not.
Even more smaller farms will be unable to pull off the increasingly difficult balancing act of survivial in a climate of falling product prices and rising farm prices (that is; the raw materials, equipment, manpower etc. needed to operate a farm) go to the wall than do at the moment. They just won't be able to survive without state aid.
Why is that a problem? For several reasons, everything from consumer choice (products from smaller farms do generally taste nicer than those produced by agribusiness. I think this is important because I think that consumers are important), to biodiversity (as an example of how important that can be, the Irish potato blight was as devastating as it was due to a lack of genetic diversity in the Irish potato crop; the whole lot had come from one or two potatoes) but most importantly of all, the sheer human cost. Take away state aid for small farms and you will plunge a lot of communities into poverty. And set against all that, there is no real benifit in abolishing state aid to smaller farms, as I have pointed out the amont of money they get is relatively small... even in North Dakota, a wheat state, the average for the bottom 80% is only a few thousand dollars each. These dollars make all the differences for thousands of farms, but taking them away won't do much towards the deficit and it certainly won't help third world farmers.

To sum this up, the best thing to do would be to abolish state aid to agribusiness but keep it, even increase it, for small farms. We should probably give subsidies based on need rather than what crop is grown.
In doing so we can save a hell of a lot of money and give a helping hand to struggling farmers in the third world as well as Atlasia... and give some more choice for consumers as well.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I fail to see how it is the government's responsibility to ensure choice for consumers.

Because somebody has to and no one else will

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't say that. I said that abolishing aid to small farms will not save much money. Abolishing aid to agribusiness will save a lot though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I gave several reasons. Personally my main reason is the fact that I don't want to see the actions of the government plunge people into poverty. We should be taking people out of it, not the other way round.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, they do a lot. For most farms, making ends meet has always been very hard; it's even harder now than it used to be. A few thousand dollars mightn't sound like much, but when margins are tight it really does matter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

New Zealand's agricultural sector is very different to Atlasias; it's largely based around livestock and dominates the country's exports. It's one thing to adapt to a lack of state aid if you're a stock-rearer; quite another to do so if you're a wheat farmer.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Theoretically, choice would be necessary in the markets in order for competition to thrive.

It's such a shame that things don't work out like that in the real world, isn't it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because someone has to, and no one else will

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not usually, no. If someone wants C but can only get A or B they will generally choose B and not complain about the lack of C even though they can't get it. It's usually the retailers that determine consumer habits, rather than consumers

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I support government funding of museums. But that isn't the issue here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A small farm is more than just a business

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not at all; stock-rearing is much more stable than wheat farming. If we get rid of aid guess what happens the first year we have a sudden unexpected frost? Or too much rain? Or a drought?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I suppose it is irony that some of the most radical spending cuts have occured under one of the most, if not the most liberal President in Atlasian History. Well, cheers to that.

Siege

Well you can veto things if you want to

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In an attempt to get this back on topic, I'll just bump this...

The issue of farm subsidies is a complex one but, unlike most other complex issues, tends only to be seen in black and white terms for reasons that I've never been able to understand.
There's also a lot of misinformation, misunderstanding and general confusion as to what farm subsidies are, what they are for and who gets them.
First off, not all farms actually get government subsidies. According the most recent set of statistics I've been able to find, just 33% of all farms in Atlasia get government subsidies. There's also a huge amont of regional diversity; about 78% of farms in North Dakota get subsidies, only 2% of farms in Hawaii do. Unsuprisingly it's wheat or cornbelt states that have the highest %'s, and states with agricultural sector based around fruit and so on, tend to have much lower numbers.

The scandal of the current subsidies setup is this; the bottom 80% of subsidy recipients get, on average, $768 a year. The top 10% of recipients (and these are invariably large, profitable farms) get on average $34,424 a year. Now, this is wrong, I hope you all understand that, and something has to be done about it.
Is simply abolishing all farm subsidies the best way to do this? No. Of course not.
Even more smaller farms will be unable to pull off the increasingly difficult balancing act of survivial in a climate of falling product prices and rising farm prices (that is; the raw materials, equipment, manpower etc. needed to operate a farm) go to the wall than do at the moment. They just won't be able to survive without state aid.
Why is that a problem? For several reasons, everything from consumer choice (products from smaller farms do generally taste nicer than those produced by agribusiness. I think this is important because I think that consumers are important), to biodiversity (as an example of how important that can be, the Irish potato blight was as devastating as it was due to a lack of genetic diversity in the Irish potato crop; the whole lot had come from one or two potatoes) but most importantly of all, the sheer human cost. Take away state aid for small farms and you will plunge a lot of communities into poverty. And set against all that, there is no real benifit in abolishing state aid to smaller farms, as I have pointed out the amont of money they get is relatively small... even in North Dakota, a wheat state, the average for the bottom 80% is only a few thousand dollars each. These dollars make all the differences for thousands of farms, but taking them away won't do much towards the deficit and it certainly won't help third world farmers.

To sum this up, the best thing to do would be to abolish state aid to agribusiness but keep it, even increase it, for small farms. We should probably give subsidies based on need rather than what crop is grown.
In doing so we can save a hell of a lot of money and give a helping hand to struggling farmers in the third world as well as Atlasia... and give some more choice for consumers as well.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Sugar subsidies are certainly the worst ones, agreed

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Sorry to keep you all waiting; there's been some problems with the definition of a small farm. That seems to have been dealt with now. Shouldn't be all that long now.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Part I

Section I

The total amount of funds appropriated for Federal Farm Subsidies will be cut a total of 65%, from $16.5 billion annually to $6 billion starting the next fiscal year.

a) An additional $500 million will be set aside, each year, for the next 5 years to aid in the creation of the Third World Agricultural Independence Agency. (See Section IV)

b) The remaining $6 billion will be appropriated specifically towards agricultural operations meeting the guidelines set forth in Section II.

c) $200 million (of the remaining $6 billion) will be set aside in a permanent account, each fiscal year, to aid in emergency relief for high risk crops (i.e. wheat, grain, citrus).

Section II

a) The amount of money to be spent on state aid to farms is to be capped at $6 billion annually, except in times of agricultural crisis (which must be declared as such by the Senate).

b) Farms will recieve payments based on how low the farm in question scores on the following variables;

i) Total value of farm output
ii) Size of profit made by farm (in % terms)
iii) Ratio of agricultural labourers per acre
iv) Total value of the farm, including farm buildings and equipment

These scores will be recalculated annually

c) Money is to be shared out, according to the score, between the bottom 80% (according to the scores) of farms eligable for state aid. The lower a farms score, the higher it's % subsidies will be.

Section III

Sugar subsidies are hereby abolished as of the next fiscal year.

Part II

Section IV

The Third World Agricultural Independency Agency (TWAIA) will be established with an operating budget of $500 million per year over the next 5 years. 

a) The mission of the organization will be primarily to send personnel trained in the usage of agricultural technologies and methods to Third World nations in order to teach them to self sufficient and productive in the field of agriculture.

b) The Senate will have full oversight over this organization which will be placed under the Department of the Treasury.

c) At the end of the designated 5 year period, the Senate will review the activities of the organization and the progress that has been made in Third World nations.

1) If it is determined that proper progress has not been made, the Senate is authorized to fire all standing leaders of the Agency, but must continue funding for an additional 3 years.

2) If it is determined that the agency has reached its goals, then the Senate may vote to terminate funding.

Section V

The federal government will be authorized to establish guidelines to assure the genetic diversity of domestic agriculture.

a) All seed production facilities will be required by the FDA to preserve at least 40 separate seed lines of any flora that is produced. 

b) All companies involved in the in the large scale breeding of domesticated animals used in the production of food products will be required to preserve no fewer than 20 separate and distinct genetic lines for each species of animal breed.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Aye

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Take a firm stance

That attitude has caused nothing but trouble. We're supposed to be legislators not soundbite generators.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I disagree.  Compromise is not always an option.

It's certainly an option in this case

[Filuwaúrdjan]

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Aye

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Thank you, Mr President