Here's a partial answer:
The agreement specifically states that "Buyout legislation shall mean any act of Congress, signed into law, that compensates current or former domestic flue-cured and burley tobacco quota holders and/or domestic tobacco growers and eliminates the tobacco quota and price support provisions of the Federal Tobacco Program."
This doesn't explain whether they have the best possible idea to fix the present, centrally controlled system, though the WaPo article states that the latest version would include increased regulation via the FDA.
My concern is, what the hell are they up to? The Motley Fool explains:
That's right -- there's movement in Congress to offer tobacco farmers a significant lump-sum payment in order to entice them to give up their current livelihood. More specifically, the buyout would be compensating farmers for phasing out various economic protections they've enjoyed since the 1930s via a system that supported tobacco prices and regulated production. (Europe is also looking into dropping its tobacco-protection systems.)
States such as Kentucky and the Carolinas have been looking for $13 billion in buyouts, to be paid over six years. Lest you find yourself suddenly tightly clutching your wallet, know that the money would come from further taxes on tobacco products.
A recent Reuters article notes that the buyout wouldn't end tobacco farming. It would mean the loss of many small farmers who couldn't afford to continue in the new system, but large farmers might actually see production levels increase, permitting them to profit even on lower prices as they compete with foreign growers.
I'd like to think that Bush is rejecting this deal because it's worse than the previous one. The only quote from WaPo is this, "'They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed,' Bush said."
I may actually read this:The Economic Impacts of a Tobacco Quota Buyout.
Okay, it was short. I read it. It ignores Henry Hazlitt's One Lesson, The good economist considers more than just the immediate effects on the beneficiaries of a policy proposal. They analyze how many jobs will be created in North Carolina due to the influx of money from the government, but they don't consider where that money is coming from and how much pork will be required to bribe the legislators of non-tobacco producing states to help producers of a product which is dwindling in demand. Or should be.
So what it comes down to is The Washington Post is trying to drive a wedge between tobacco growers and President Bush, when I am quite sure their editorial position is that tobacco shouldn't be produced or consumed at all.
So what does the President think? I can't believe he's pleased with the present situation of subsidies and quotas and I'd like to believe his opposition is due to the fact that the proposed alternatives aren't much of an improvement, just an updating of the technocracy. But he's a compassionate conservative - pretty much a communitarian, not a libertarian. If you combine communitarianism with a utilitarian grip on the lessons of history, you'll come out all right. Trouble is, history is always subject to reinterpretation under new theories, which may or may not be sound. I suspect communitarianism is too open to unprofitable developments.
Can I find more about the President's position?
Not easily. I can't find what the question was or any of the context. Former President Clinton authorized a study. Looks like the commission was killed by President Bush. There's probably some more value to be found in the University of North Texas CyberCemetary.
Oops! Major thunderclap. I think I'll go ahead and post this before the power goes out.
This Google search shows more special interest (I like to call them courtiers) screeching than any deep economic reasoning.
Update (sort of): I just ran a spell check and the checker thought I should replace 'buyout' with 'buttocks'. Hard to argue with that logic.
No comments:
Post a Comment