With the ongoing budget debates in the U.S. Congress, legislators have considered cutting NPR, the NEA, portions of the defense budget, and even some entitlements. What seems to be missing from the budget conversation is a focus on cutting programs which both harm taxpayers and waste their hard earned dollars. Cutting subsidies to corn producers and other major agricultural groups should be considered a viable solution in Congress. While Iowa still has the first caucus during the presidential primary system, no political lobby should be insulated from necessary spending cuts.
Corn farmers alone received over five billion dollars in direct payments from the federal government in 2012. These subsidies not only unnecessarily subsidize corporate farming, they also are a leading contributor to the public health epidemic in America today. Most New Haven residents, such as myself, do not have easy access to a diversity of affordable food options. The products that are cheapest to us, sugary processed foods, are loaded with high fructose corn syrup to sweeten their taste. Most individuals do not recognize how much corn they consume, or how ubiquitous corn syrup is in their diet. The average American consumes over 77 pounds of corn via products sweetened with corn sugar alone.
Subsidies to farmers on a wide-scale basis started in 1922 with the Grain Futures Act. Originally, subsidies solved for a market problem - individual farmers were over supplying the market. For the average farmer, he or she would be better off farming more grain during the surplus because he or she could sell more product; however, this effect is offset when all other farmers adopt the same strategy. As such, agricultural prices were incredibly low, and farmers were unable to allow their fields to lie fallow. These concerns are no longer a reality for farmers. Most farms are corporate owned or operated. Additionally, the development of recent irrigation and farming techniques coupled with an expansion in available markets has allowed corporate farmers to easily turn a profit with additional government assistance.
Ending corn subsidies benefits average individuals. Not only by saving their tax dollars, but also by paying off in the long run. Lowering the over-consumption of empty calories and sweet products is tantamount to fight obesity, a problem in New Haven and all across America. Removing corn subsidies raises the price of these goods relative to others, making healthier options more price competitive. Food purchasers need to have an incentive to eat healthier, and food producers need to have an incentive not to oversupply their products with sugar.
Corn subsidies preference corn over other products, but what makes corn so special? When Americans are choosing between cutting programs which provide aid to the least well off or educate our population, it seems to be inconsiderate to ignore corn subsidies. Both the savings directly from cutting subsidies, and the potential public health benefits should make corn the sweetest target on the legislative menu.
Robert Colonel
New Haven