Here is an interesting article from the Ohio Intelligencer and Wheeling News-Register. It takes a 'tough' stand against attempts to subsidize winery development in their state. full article: Taxpayers Should Not Subsidize Wineries.
I wonder if their tough stance is applied equally to the massive amounts of federal cash Ohio brings home for their soybean and corn?
The 2002 Farm Bill is scheduled to distribute about $190 billion in ag subsidies by 2012, an increase of about $72 billion when compared to the programs it replaced. Now, a full two years before the next Farm Bill, an intense debate is already raging over the distribution of federal crop subsidies.
Interested parties should visit the Ag subsidies database on the Environmental Working Group's website. EWG's newly updated subsidies database is recording 1 million hits a day from taxpayers who have paid out $131 billion to farmers over the last nine years. The 2002 'Freedom to Farm Act' eliminated crop subsidies, but instead gave farmers fixed amounts of money based on what they had grown in earlier years.
One of the biggest problems with ag subsidies is determining their goals, they seem to change depending on what audience is talking about them. Typical goals for agricultural subsidies include:
- to increase production of certain products to meet rising demand
- to jump-start new farm industries in areas suffering economically
- to ensure that American farmers can compete globally
- to manage what and how much American farmers produce
- to create a safety net for small family farmers
- to encourage settlement of undeveloped rural areas
- to guard against export dependency for certain subsidized crops
- to provide assitance to massive corporate farms, grain brokers, food processors, fast-food chains, and prepackaged food companies
The article in the Ohio Intelligencer seems to think that the 'a greater risk-reward ratio' for viticulture makes it unsuitable for ag subsidies. Other economic subsidy fans prefer the government invest in big ticket Sports stadiums that provide a multiplier effect by creating loads of great jobs in the area. Obviously, we must set our goals better, if we want our money invested wisely.
Proponents of local wine industry development will tell you that viticuture and wine tourism offer very high levels benefits for rural communities. They generate capital investment, create jobs, spur tourism and economic development, advance farmland protection and discourage urban sprawl. In fact, a typical new family winery will provide regular employment for five to ten people, and will have annual sales of $200,000 to $1.5 million. In areas where wineries flourish, restaurants, bed-and-breakfasts, inns, retail boutiques, farm and other craft businesses also succeed. Those who support creating a safety net for small family farmers will be glad to know that of the 3,700+ wineries in the U.S., all but the top 50 to 100 producers are small, family-owned and operated farm enterprises.
What do you think?
Are agriculture subsidies for the Oklahoma wine industry wasted taxpayer money or critical economic investment?
No comments:
Post a Comment