Actual Farm Subsidies Abolition Bill

[Democratic Hawk]

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'

[Democratic Hawk]

Read the debate from the original bill Dave.

Indeed, I shall

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

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.

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'

[Democratic Hawk]

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'

[Democratic Hawk]

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'

[Democratic Hawk]

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'