The article by Brian Cross on some farmers’ impressions of grain marketing on both sides of the border (Farmer sees pros, cons, to both marketing systems, WP Sept. 29) was worth reading.
(However), the article on page 32 that week, “Obama determined to end $5 billion U.S. farm subsidy,” (raises the question of whether) claims about better U.S. prices were the result of subsidies. …
In reality, the Yanks have talked about removing their subsidies for almost 40 years. It was not very long ago that the Canadian shills for the private grain trade and railways managed to convince Ottawa we should end the Crow rate. One of their promises was U.S. subsidies would end. With the Crow gone, farmers paid more, and we lost thou-s ands of elevators. The Yanks responded by putting in longer-term and bigger subsidies.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
The same Canadian Astroturf groups are now saying we need to end the Canadian Wheat Board in return for reduced U.S. subsidies. History certainly shows this is a nave hope. And a little common sense will tell you the Yanks will not end what amounts to a trivial cost to their government just because some rubes in Canada think they will.
To put that $5 billion US into perspective, it amounts to less than three days spending on the U.S. military. Why would any U.S. administration save what amounts to pocket change and annoy an important domestic lobby group? It makes me think people like the Grain Growers of Canada who take this stuff seriously should not be allowed out alone at night.
Ken Larsen,Benalto, Alta.
