MattthewDallman’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Why not keep subsidies an issue for the states?

  Mr Pollan,

  Big fan of your work, and I think on nearly every issue you covered in Omnivore's Dilemma, you were spot on. Except, that is, for your view, elaborated above, regarding the Farm Bill and subsidies in general.

  A government large enough to correct the subsidies allocations in whatever way you find appealing is a government large enough to take all that away and revert to some system as wrongheaded as the current one, or perhaps worse. There is a lobbyist problem in D.C. precisely because the federal government is so large. The solution is to remove the incentive for lobbyists to pollute DC in the first place, by removing their reason for lobbying the federal gov't.

  I see your points, from your book, that certain subsidies to farmers are a good idea, given that free market principles don't apply very cleanly, given unpredictability of weather.

  But why not eliminate all federal subsidies for agriculture, and instead have those states that have a large enough agricultural sector dole out subsidies as needed to farmers in their state? This would keep the relevant decision-making closer to the areas impacted than is currently. Meaning farmers would have more actual involvement in policy making. Wouldn't states with large enough agricultural production see it in their own best interest to have farmers supported, for their state's economy? I don't see why they wouldn't.

  And wouldn't a state-level solution keep farmers happy, who were worried that subsidies would have been removed altogether by reform, as you suggest in this article?

  kind regards,
  Matthew DallmanOn Michael Pollan calls for crafting a viable alternative for next time posted 1 year, 5 months ago 4 Responses