The following article was posted at “Inside Costa Rica” on November 12, 2007:
Bolivia Secures Food Sovereignty
The Bolivian government announced new political measures Sunday to consolidate food sovereignty, and stop importing basic products. According to Vice President Alvaro Garcia, by 2009 the State will invest over 60 million dollars in the sector, distributed in various programs.
When addressing the session of Potosi’s Municipal Council on the occasion of its 197th foundation anniversary, Garcia informed that 18 million dollars have been approved for the construction there of a soybean processing plant. In addition, 25 million dollars will be assigned for the construction of a rice and wheat enterprise, while another 10 million will be granted to resettle cattle nationwide, he added.
The top official stressed the government is also implementing cooperation plans with credits, seeds, supplies, and technological advice. Garcia also recalled that two decades ago, the territories of Potosi and Cochabamba guaranteed food production for the whole country, but the caretaker governments and neoliberal model ended that tradition and productive capacity.
When I first read this I imagined writing yet another entry on how Bolivians are obviously not content with simply shooting themselves in the foot. They want to reload and keep firing. The policy of “food sovereignty” is nothing more than a rejection of the most basic economic principles of comparative advantage and division of labor.
But then I watched the Republican YouTube debate on CNN Wednesday night. One of the questions came from Ted Faturos of Manhattan Beach, California. Holding an ear of corn in his hand, he posed the following question:
“Mmmmmm, nothing says delicious like cheap corn subsidized by the American taxpayer. For a lot of Americans, however, a bitter taste is left in their mouth when they learned about how the U.S. taxpayer bankrolls billions of dollars in farm subsidies that mostly go to large item business interests. I’m curious which candidate could label themselves fiscally responsible, will endorse the elimination of farm subsidies if they are elected president in 2008.”
Mitt Romney responded, “We don’t want to find ourselves, with regards to our food supply, in the same kind of position we’re in with regards to our energy supply. And so it’s important for us to make sure that our farmers are able to stay on the farm and raise the crops that we need to have a secure source of food. And so I believe in supports that will allow us to do that.”
Rudy Giuliani concurred, stating “…we have to be very aware of the fact that we have to have our own supply of food. We can’t be dependent on foreign countries for our food.”
At this point my jaw dropped to the floor. I’ve come to terms with the fact that I can no longer consider myself a Republican. After all, I’m a small-government, free-market kind of guy. There’s no room for someone like me in the GOP. But even the most dyed-in-the-wool neocon Republican should be concerned when the two front-runners for his party’s nomination recommend the same economic policies as those espoused by an illiterate communist like Bolivia’s Evo Morales.
Aren’t Republicans supposed to be against government welfare programs? Farm subsidies are nothing but welfare transfer payments made to agricultural corporations. Not only are they unconstitutional, they are also brazenly anti-capitalist. On Wednesday night, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani showed that they either do not understand the free market, or that they do not believe it really works. Either way, they should be ruled out as viable candidates for the GOP bid.
1 Comment
December 3, 2007 at 7:48 am
GOP should call subsidies by their rean name; social programs for the rich!!