CNN Republican Debate & Farm Subsidies

Welcome to the Competition Bureau's Web site. The Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency. We contribute to the prosperity of Canadians by protecting and promoting competitive markets and enabling informed consumer choice. Headed by the Commissioner of Competition, the organization investigates anti-competitive practices and promotes compliance with the laws under its jurisdiction.

Yeah, fishing the Klamath really sucks. Don't go there whatever you do.

http://www.usafishing.com/klamath.html

From the 30 July 2003 Issue of the Wall Street Journal

Oregon Water Saga Illuminates Rove's Methods With Agencies
TOM HAMBURGER
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
July 30, 2003


WASHINGTON -- In a darkened conference room, White House political strategist Karl Rove was making an unusual address to 50 top managers at the U.S. Interior Department. Flashing color slides, he spoke of poll results, critical constituencies -- and water levels in the Klamath River basin.

At the time of the meeting, in January 2002, Mr. Rove had just returned from accompanying President Bush on a trip to Oregon, where they visited with a Republican senator facing re-election. Republican leaders there wanted to support their agricultural base by diverting water from the river basin to nearby farms, and Mr. Rove signaled that the administration did, too.

Three months later, Interior Secretary Gale Norton stood with Sen. Gordon Smith in Klamath Falls and opened the irrigation-system head gates that increased the water supply to 220,000 acres of farmland -- a policy shift that continues to stir bitter criticism from environmentalists and Indian tribes.

Though Mr. Rove's clout within the administration often is celebrated, this episode offers a rare window into how he works behind the scenes to get things done. One of them is with periodic visits to cabinet departments. Over the past two years Mr. Rove or his top aide, Kenneth Mehlman -- now manager of Mr. Bush's re-election campaign -- have visited nearly every agency to outline White House campaign priorities, review polling data and, on occasion, call attention to tight House, Senate and gubernatorial races that could be affected by regulatory action.

Every administration has used cabinet resources to promote its election interests. But some presidential scholars and former federal and White House officials say the systematic presentation of polling data and campaign strategy goes beyond what Mr. Rove's predecessors have done.

Quote:

From the 30 July 2003 Issue of the Wall Street Journal

Oregon Water Saga Illuminates Rove's Methods With Agencies
TOM HAMBURGER
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
July 30, 2003


WASHINGTON -- In a darkened conference room, White House political strategist Karl Rove was making an unusual address to 50 top managers at the U.S. Interior Department. Flashing color slides, he spoke of poll results, critical constituencies -- and water levels in the Klamath River basin.

At the time of the meeting, in January 2002, Mr. Rove had just returned from accompanying President Bush on a trip to Oregon, where they visited with a Republican senator facing re-election. Republican leaders there wanted to support their agricultural base by diverting water from the river basin to nearby farms, and Mr. Rove signaled that the administration did, too.

Three months later, Interior Secretary Gale Norton stood with Sen. Gordon Smith in Klamath Falls and opened the irrigation-system head gates that increased the water supply to 220,000 acres of farmland -- a policy shift that continues to stir bitter criticism from environmentalists and Indian tribes.

Though Mr. Rove's clout within the administration often is celebrated, this episode offers a rare window into how he works behind the scenes to get things done. One of them is with periodic visits to cabinet departments. Over the past two years Mr. Rove or his top aide, Kenneth Mehlman -- now manager of Mr. Bush's re-election campaign -- have visited nearly every agency to outline White House campaign priorities, review polling data and, on occasion, call attention to tight House, Senate and gubernatorial races that could be affected by regulatory action.

Every administration has used cabinet resources to promote its election interests. But some presidential scholars and former federal and White House officials say the systematic presentation of polling data and campaign strategy goes beyond what Mr. Rove's predecessors have done.

full article here

In my flu-like-sniffling-haze I watched the Republican debate on CNN.

1) Farm exports would be non-competitive, thus agri-businesses would suffer dearly because all the rest of the world heavily subsidizes their farming practices.

2) The US must ensure an abundant and secure source of food domestically. If the US does not, and thus depends on foreign food like it does with oil, it puts the US at excessive risk. Farm subsides are the only way to ensure an abundant and secure source of food domestically.

all the rest of the world heavily subsidizes their farming practices.

To clarify, I did claim it's true;

[color]I understood that[/color]

but only noted that during the Republican debate on CNN, the Republican presidential nominees had consensus that the rest of the world heavily subsidized their farming practices, making it (presumably) a viable rationale for US farming subsidies.

Interesting question comes to mind though: given that the Australian dollar has often traditionally been a laggard compared to the major currencies, I wonder how much that plays into lower Australian farming subsidies, or are there other underlying reasons why Australian subsidies would seem to be less? Cheaper costs of production? Cheaper land? Cheaper labor? Cheaper taxes?

There has to be reasons why Australian farm products would be competitive internationally against more subsidized products; that is unless Australian farm products are not competitive internationally - on a price basis only I'm talking here - not on whether there is a market due to demand for other reasons such as perceived quality or other less tangible considerations. The caché of New Zealand lamb perhaps?

FWIW I've seen very little Australian farm products here in BC Canada, nor in Washington / Oregon in the US - anecdotal evidence admittedly but perhaps telling.

In any case I suggest a subsides are simply a form of protectionism.