Then we are on the same page [1].

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/02/09/farm-subsidies-welfare-queens-and-kings.html

In essence, those programs, funding and corporate welfare projects that are widely and rightly derided by responsible conservatives and liberals alike, as discussed briefly in this post on the Corner.

The ag subsidies that benefit them, as well as those which are anthema to a free market and harmful to our national interests and national security (like helping to keep millions of people around the world in debt and in poverty by denying them a fair, free market) should be eliminated.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzUzNmMwOTI5NWMxNzU3ODljODVlOWQ0MGUxMTYwMTk=

As usual, I was guilty here of overgeneralization. Apologies, but I hope you can see where I am getting at here and why. Big AG, like the airlines and the major sports associations, represent to me an undeserving recipient of corporate welfare from local, state and federal governments. That does not mean they don’t do any good, but it does mean that the corporate welfare and handouts needs to be shut down, something that responsible conservatives can join with others in working towards achieving.

To list just one, next time you’re in South Dakota, remind to show you some CRP land [1]. It’s only “To date, CRP has arguably been the most successful conservation program in the U. S. in terms of improving water quality, soil quality and building wildlife populations.”

Will you abandon your position, and merely claim that “Big Ag” is a political lobby group? Or do you maintain your contention that it is the “only” beneficiary of ag subsidies?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_Reserve_Program

I see no evidence that agricultural subsidies benefit Americans, let alone small farmers, being as there are so few of them that it would be rather pointless to give away taxpayer money to people who can’t deal with the free market.

I do see evidence that Big Ag is the biggest lobby in Washington, given its donations to political parties, campaigns and political institutions over the years. As well as how much money this country continues to give Big Ag in the form of corporate welfare.

How is it a backward policy of blame if people are suffering because of it now and will continue to in the future? That’s patently absurd. Its an ongoing travesty from a country that is as Janus-faced on this tragedy as it is with democracy and authoritarianism in the MENA & Central Asia.

My point would be that once again, politicians promise real change and fail to deliver. That’s not a partisan charge but a political reality.

I supported McCain’s opposition to ethanol subsidies. And I fully understood in the context of electoral politics his subsequent flip-flop on the issue in this campaign.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/11/13/8393132/index.htm

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/12/512797.aspx

Glad we agree on ag subisides.

Onto trade and xenophobia, my point was criticizing Jeffry’s odd comment.

Eddie,

Ag subsidies should be the first step because we’ve arguably benefited more than anyone from free trade and the greed of a few Americans is harming millions of Africans, Asians & Latin Americans.

It would be more useful if you advocated beliefs based on how much they would accomplish or how readily they can be implemented, rather than a backwards-looking policy of blame.

Further, eliminating the ag subsidies would not harm Americans, except for Big Ag, which has been stealing from the American people for decades thanks to their influence in Congress getting them all the handouts their hearts desire (this is a conservative complaint first and foremost, no more GD! handouts to corporations, let alone citizens).

Your point is absurd. The electoral support for ag subsides does not come from “Big Ag,” nor those who are particularly sympathetic to “Big Ag.” “Americans” who are not part of “Big Ag” that would be harmed by ending subsidies include small landowners, hunters, environmentalists, and farmers. Certainly these groups might not have the best interests of the country at heart. But your comment is still a puzzling oversimplification.

If Obama or McCain were serious about changing the culture of Washington, taking on Big Ag and their buddies in Congress would be a start. Further it would show they are serious about restoring America’s frayed ties with much of the world and trumping the Europeans who have been sniping at us for this while having even more ag subsidies than we do.

Your point is that McCain has an incorrect position on ethanol subsides? Or that world food prices are too low?

Further, eliminating the ag subsidies would not harm Americans, except for Big Ag, which has been stealing from the American people for decades thanks to their influence in Congress getting them all the handouts their hearts desire (this is a conservative complaint first and foremost, no more GD! handouts to corporations, let alone citizens).

If Obama or McCain were serious about changing the culture of Washington, taking on Big Ag and their buddies in Congress would be a start. Further it would show they are serious about restoring America’s frayed ties with much of the world and trumping the Europeans who have been sniping at us for this while having even more ag subsidies than we do.

Regarding whether anti-immigrant sentiment is driven by resources or xenophobia, I think it’s a false choice. Resource competition can be expressed through xenophobia, and xenophobia can encourage resource competition by creating the in-group/out-group dynamics that define who ‘deserves’ primary access to jobs. It would be interesting to try and trace anti-immigrant sentiment to unemployment over time, and see if lowered unemployment actually leads to less anti-immigrant pressure (which would support the ‘resource’ idea) or if they are unrelated.

I think what Jeffrey is getting at is that while protectionism isn’t driven by xenophobia, anti-immigrant sentiment is.

I agree that’s Jeffrey’s claim. I just don’t buy it.

Group-conflicts rarely tend to come from nowhere. Rather, they go along with resource competition. So many techncially educated whites are very vocal in their opposition to the H1-B program, but generally silent on other forms of immigration. Likewise, agitation against illegal immigrations is very strong among uneducated whites and blacks, because likewise those are immigrants who would take their jobs.

It’s fun and politically expedient for a someone to argue that opponents of immigration are racist/xenophobic because they won’t to prevent those people from gaining employment, or that opponents of trade are, for the same reason. But loss of employment is a much stronger and more universal concern that xenophobia.

So if protectionism and xenophobia are “two sides of the same coin” presumably they would have similar motivations.

But the premise is false, so the conclusion is false.

(Although I am unclear where tdaxp said that they are two sides of the same coin.)

In the conclusion of my post of March 3, 2008:

Globalization in capital and goods (”Free Trade”) and globalization in labor (”immigration”) are two sides of the same coin. Only John McCain has been “talking straight” and supporting both. This has real political consequences, as McCain has to break less campaign promises once he starts governing, and thus burns less political capital upon entering office.

I agree with Jeffrey’s proposal to limit free trade to countries without slave labor, child labor, etc.

You’re “etc” is very, very broad here, because Jeffry’s proposal was to “limit ourselves from having to compete with nations that have lower standards of labor laws.” Labor laws are a function of the wealth of the country, so (unless I misread him) Jeffrey’s opposing trade with less developed countries, countires that trade benefits the most, unless they abandon competition on the one thing they are already good at (cost of labor).

But it must be said, even to someone in the Midwest (Eddie, back me up) – a necessary component of any free trade agreement, especially with an agricultural country, must be the elimination of US agricultural subsidies!

I’ve argued for ending these subsidies before, but claiming they are a required first step is just as self-blinding as that total control of the border is a required first step for comprehensive immigration reform. It’s an idea that’s either foolish or else designed to sabotage any progress.