EU Proposal: Shift Farming Subsidies To Science 154
smitty777 writes "There is a proposal in the EU budget which would provide a 45% increase in technology and innovation spending for the 2014-2020 time period. Interestingly, some of the increase from $79B to $114B would come from the controversial farm subsidies program, the Common Agricultural Policy. The article states ... 'While some scientists and observers feel optimistic that the proposal will pass, one stated that "it is extremely unlikely that the member states will agree to anything exceeding this, so we should regard it as a ceiling" on the eventual research budget.'"
Ha, yeah, good luck with that (Score:2, Insightful)
The farming lobby is one of the strongest in Congress. You'll have every midwestern senator and his brother screaming holy bloody murder before debate even begins. And that's not to mentioned that Archer Daniels Midland [wikipedia.org] (ADM) basically owns half of them (you think they're just going to roll over and give up billion of $ in subsidies to a bunch of eggheads without a nasty fight?).
You'd have better luck getting cuts to oil subsidies through Texas's and Alaska's objections. And even that is nigh impossible.
Subsidies are a drop in the bucket. (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine what we could get done if we weren't spending billions per month on war.
Our problems with the budget have nothing to do with unemployment, welfare, SSI, or unions, or whatever monster that the Republicans say is hiding under the bed. It has everything to do with the fact that we're pissing money away on wars that we /did not and are not paying for/. (Cut taxes while fighting a war? Just who the fuck is claiming fiscal responsibility here?)
We give science short shrift here when it is /undisputed/ by people on both sides of the aisle (except for nutcases like Palin) that basic and applied science give valuable dividends to society as a whole.
And don't tell me that the "free market" and companies will take up the slack. PARC no longer exists and neither does Bell Labs. R&D has been the first thing to be cut by bean counters in the last 30 years.
--
BMO
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)
The "farming lobby" is more about large megacorps than it is about real farmers. That's the real problem here. If you cut out the farm subsidies then some very large corporations will be hammered right in the pocketbook. They aren't going to take that lying down. Neither will Republicans.
This is all about "big business". Using the word "farm" to refer to any of this is a huge and misleading misnomer.
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that (Score:3, Insightful)
The farming lobby is one of the strongest in Congress. You'll have every midwestern senator and his brother screaming holy bloody murder before debate even begins. And that's not to mentioned that Archer Daniels Midland [wikipedia.org] (ADM) basically owns half of them (you think they're just going to roll over and give up billion of $ in subsidies to a bunch of eggheads without a nasty fight?).
You'd have better luck getting cuts to oil subsidies through Texas's and Alaska's objections. And even that is nigh impossible.
Suprisingly the US Congress and midwestern senators and the like have very little say in the EU.
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? You live in the city, right?
I sure know a lot of family owned farms here in east central Illinois that take the subsidy programs.
But, what do I know. I just hang out with farmers and own farmland of my own. I assure you I'm hardly a megacorp.
Yes, the large corporations like ADM and many others do large lobbying pushes, but they don't directly vote. In farm states (you probably call them fly-over states), the congress-critters often rely on the farm vote to keep their jobs.
Whether it should be that way is a different discussion, but the simple picture you paint is misleading at best.
Re:Subsidies are a drop in the bucket. (Score:3, Insightful)
Republicanism is morally and fiscally bankrupt.
Deal with it.
--
BMO