Poorer countries should take advantage of agricultural subsidies

I support removing agricultural subisides, not from the point of view of fairer international trade but because subsidies are not fair to the taxpayers in the developed countries.

In the same vein, developing countries should remove import duties because they are unfair to the consumers in their own countries.

I have argued that instead of protesting, developing countries should
remove trade barriers and import tarriffs that they have erected to "protect" domestic farmers.

Josh,

You're missing the point. The entire POINT of the exercise is that President Bush will get, and sign, a bill significantly increasing farm subsidy payments to members of congress and large agribusinesses.

He gets benefits by doing this:

* he now has a "chit" from 9 of the most influential members of Congress who RECEIVE hundreds of thousands of these tax dollars every year. He'll cash that chit on some other piece of legislation he actually cares about.

* He gets big agri-business to understand that, hey, come election time, "you might want to donate to a few Republicans ... because, you know, we're in power now, and if we don't get support and you don't get access to us by donating to us, well we might just end up not understanding your issues, if you know what I mean."

That's what people don't understand about budget POLITICS. A proposed cut GENERATES campaign dollars. Actual cuts, LOWER campaign dollars.

The only programs that ever get cut are ones where the recipient of the largess doesn't understand the GAME BEING PLAYED.

The dirty little secret is that the President is a Rockefeller Republican.

He has been unable to say, "No" to pork for four years and has, in fact, played this game of sounding fiscally conservative while presiding over a spendfest that would make LBJ blush.

slim999 - painfully, pathetically true. Ouch.

"More than tax cuts, Bush's domestic legacy will be one of wasteful, bloated big government."

Unfortunately, much as I like Bush internationally (which, by the way, is the President's JOB - all this domestic stuff is extraneous, go read the Constitution!), domestically, I think you may well be right.

I do think he's spending his political capital wisely, though. The deficit is no higher (as a percentage of GDP) than at many other times in the last hundred years. Of course, much of that is domestic, not war related at all, which is silly, but we can handle it. Consider what he buys (politically) with his political capital INSTEAD of buying a smaller deficit (something he may not even be insterested in, unfortunately).

I just hope he actually manages to start using his veto at some point. Seriously, if he vetos for the first time after over 4 years in office, it will be viewed as very serious. Perhaps (hoping here) he's saving that up for a rainy day, and if no rainy day comes, he might us it in his last year in office to veto the beudget repeatedly until it comes down a good bit.

Pipe dream, I know. But it sure would be nice.

How the hell is slim999 "painfully, pathetically true"? First he/she says I'm "missing the point" and then proceeds to reinforce everything I wrote.

"developing countries should
remove trade barriers and import tarriffs that they have erected to "protect" domestic farmers."

Generally, they have. And the results have been disastrous. It is not as though developing countries can move into high-skill, capital-intensive alternatives.

"Generally, they have. And the results have been disastrous."

Oh really? How so?

http://web.idrc.ca/es/ev-26739-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

"On the face of it, the facts are clear. Despite two decades of trade liberalization, often as part of a Structural Adjustment Program supported by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, tariff levels are highest in developing countries. While average tariffs amount to about 5% of the value of trade in developed countries, they are around 15% in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa, and around 25% in South Asia. Moreover, developing countries impose tariffs on each other’s goods that are as high as those they impose on goods originating in developed countries."

That Mr. Bush was and is a Big Government Republican was only a dirty little secret to those who have been asleep for a few decades. Of more interest is that the democrat agenda, by being so very left wing, actually gets implemented by a President. If the Dems ever ran anyone decent the President's room to roam about would be greatly decreased.

I see that the Bush administration has already raised the estimated increase in medicare over the next ten years from $400 billion to $720 billion.

Was there ever a government program that did not expand in cost? Was there ever one whose costs were fairly estimated before implementation? Was there ever a cost paid by the miscreants (other than re-election)?