The New York Times
June 15, 1991, Saturday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section 1; Page 23; Column 1; Editorial Desk
LENGTH: 624 words
HEADLINE: Feed the Soviets, Starve the Taxpayer
BYLINE: By James Bovard; James Bovard is the author of "The Farm Fiasco"
and the forthcoming "The Fair Trade Fraud."
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
(c) 1991 The New York Times, June 15, 1991
BODY: With this week's announcement of another export credit package for the Soviet
Union, the Federal Government is once again trying to solve U.S. farm problems
by throwing money at foreign governments. Unfortunately, Washington's farm export
policy is becoming a black hole that is senselessly pulling in more and more tax
dollars while providing minimal benefit to farmers.
U.S. grain exports are now routinely Pyrrhic victories. The Agriculture Department
recently paid an export subsidy of $1.41 a bushel on wheat sold to Norway for
$1.50 a bushel. Thanks to the department's generosity, American wheat is now far
cheaper in Oslo than in Chicago.
And by paying a 94 percent export subsidy on wheat, the Agriculture Department
displaced unsubsidized exports of U.S. grain sorghum to Norway. The Feed Grains
Council complains that subsidized wheat exports are increasingly undercutting
unsubsidized exports of corn and other feed grains.
The Export Enhancement Program, the largest U.S. export subsidy program, has spent
more than $2 billion to boost wheat exports. An Agriculture Department study concluded
that 9 of every 10 bushels of wheat exported through the program would have been
exported anyhow. So instead of exporting for a profit, the U.S. sold for a loss.
Robert Paarlberg, a Harvard economist, notes, "It would have been almost
a dollar a bushel cheaper simply to buy surplus wheat on the free market and then
destroy it, rather than to give it away" under the export program.
The Agriculture Department is also burning tax dollars to export eggs to Hong
Kong, barley malt to Venezuela, rice to Turkey and frozen chickens to Saudi Arabia.
A department study found that poultry export subsidies not only cost taxpayers
more than $50 million -- but also drove up retail poultry prices in the U.S. by
almost $1.5 billion.
On March 1, the department announced a major expansion of dairy export subsidies.
The Government is paying farmers 98 cents a pound for butter -- and selling butter
to foreigners for roughly 60 cents a pound. At a time when many Americans cannot
afford to buy milk, we will spend more than $50 million to dump 140,000 tons of
U.S. dry milk on world markets at fire-sale prices.
Members of the Congressional farm lobby appear to believe that taxpayers are obliged
to bankroll any foreign government willing to receive U.S. farm products.
Representative Dan Glickman of Kansas complained that Mr. Bush's initial refusal
to grant more credits was the "equivalent of a grain embargo" against
the Soviets. This makes as much sense as my complaining of a Mercedes embargo
because the German Government will not give me the money to buy a fancy imported
car.
Farm-state Congressmen are happy that giving export credits to the Soviets, by
fueling demand for American wheat, is driving up U.S. wheat prices. This may be
great for politicians. But the higher U.S. prices become, the less competitive
American wheat will be on world markets. The more export subsidies Washington
provides, the more difficult it becomes to export any grain without a subsidy.
(c) 1991 The New York Times, June 15, 1991
If legislators truly want to boost farm exports, they should abolish Federal farm
programs. This year the Agriculture Department will pay farmers to leave more
than 60 million acres of land idle -- thereby sharply decreasing output and productivity.
Federal price supports drive U.S. crop prices above world prices, crippling our
competitiveness.
We cannot become rich by giving food to foreigners. Farm export subsidies have
disrupted international markets, squandered billions of dollars and bushwhacked
some American farmers. The sooner the crazyquilt collection of export subsidies
is abolished, the more prosperous the nation will be.
TYPE: Op-Ed