Obama yesterday mentioned cut in ag subsidies. Obama menciona que bajará los subsidios agrícolas

As we stated in last month paper, and in other press releases posted in AGFOOD THINK TANK the increase of developed countries fiscal budget to fight against economy depression might have as a counterpart the cut in some areas of farm subsidies in order to decrease fiscal deficit.

We don´t know when this will happen. It was surprising, however, that yesterday in chicago, elected US president Obama mentioned his intention to cut agricultural subsidies on US large farmers. He mentioned this while presenting Peter Orszag the person that will be in charge to reduce fiscal deficit. Although this are small signals, they are happening fast and we will see more of them in the near future.

José Gobbée for AGRI FOOD THINK TANK

Here is a great clipping related to Obama disclosure yesterday.

President-Elect Obama on Farm Spending
Peter Nicholas reported in today’s Los Angeles Times that, “President-elect Barack Obama delivered a message Tuesday that even as the nation girds for a major stimulus package meant to ‘jolt’ the economy out of its downturn, he will be a careful custodian of the budget, eliminating wasteful spending such as federal crop subsidies for millionaire farmers.“That type of federal outlay ‘is a prime example of the kind of waste that I intend to end as president,’ Obama told reporters at a hotel in downtown Chicago, as he introduced Peter R. Orszag as his nominee to head the Office of Management and Budget. Orszag, educated at Princeton and the London School of Economics, headed the Congressional Budget Office, which analyzes budget issues.”

Jeff Zeleny reported in today’s New York Times that, “Mr. Obama cited, as an example of the possible cuts he expects Mr. Orszag and the rest of his budget team to find, the findings of a recent government report indicating that farmers whose incomes exceeded $2.5 million had most likely been mistakenly paid about $49 million in government subsidies from 2003 to 2006.“‘Just because a program, a special interest tax break or corporate subsidy is hidden in this year’s budget does not mean that it will survive the next,’ he said. ‘The old ways of Washington simply can’t meet the challenges of today and tomorrow.’”

In a related item, The Washington Post editorial board stated today that, “‘To make the investments we need,’ President-elect Barack Obama said Monday, ‘we’ll have to scour our federal budget, line by line, and make meaningful cuts and sacrifices, as well, something I’ll be discussing further tomorrow.’ When yesterday arrived, however, Mr. Obama wasn’t much more specific. On one level, that’s understandable; it will be difficult enough for the new administration to come up with a detailed budget by the time that is due in February. Yet Mr. Obama is talking about adding hundreds of billions of dollars in federal debt. That is reasonable under the dire economic circumstances, but it is scarcely adequate to couple that with platitudes about eliminating wasteful spending.

“Mr. Obama spoke of meaningful cuts, but the example he cited yesterday — crop subsidy overpayments to millionaire farmers not entitled to receive them — was especially galling. The supposed amount involved — $49 million over four years — is puny in the context of a $3 trillion annual budget. Even worse, Mr. Obama, after inveighing on the campaign trail about ‘multimillion-dollar subsidies’ for ‘agribusiness lobbyists,’ then supported a farm bill stuffed with just such subsidies.

Likewise, the editorial board at The Wall Street Journal opined today that, “Barack Obama yesterday introduced his new White House budget director, Peter Orszag, vowing to conduct a ‘line by line’ review of the federal fisc. Most incoming chief executives promise that sort of thing. But here’s a detail that really caught our eye: As part of his plan to kill government programs ‘that have outlived their usefulness,’ the President-elect singled out farm subsidies for the rich.“If he really means it, this would be big news. Mr. Obama cited a recent Government Accountability Office report that found that of the 1.8 million people receiving farm payments from 2003 to 2006, nearly 3,000 had incomes above $2.5 million, which ought to make them ineligible for aid. Nevertheless, they cashed in to the tune of some $49 million. Having written 40,000 or so editorials against this corporate welfare over the years, we’d love to see a Democrat join the fight.

The Journal editorial added that, “President Bush actually sought a $200,000 annual income cap on subsidy payments, but Congress couldn’t bring itself to vote on anything below $750,000. And even that got killed by the likes of Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad, who as it happens helped Mr. Orszag get his current job running the Congressional Budget Office. The Members ended up passing a $300 billion bill in which nearly every crop, from corn to sugar, won subsidy increases. Mr. Bush vetoed it in May but was overridden.
“The vote in the Senate was 82 to 13.