COTTON SUBSIDIES
The government has long paid subsidies to cotton growers to bolster production. These subsidies draw both criticism and support. Some call them wasteful, while others say they rightly back the industry against high cotton costs.
Subsidizing cotton farmers boosts national productivity. Opponents overlook that subsidies sustain growers dependent on cotton. Without subsidies, farmers would struggle to earn income and live well.
Beyond aiding farmers, subsidies maintain cotton output. Cotton looks unpromising versus synthetic alternatives flooding markets. But organic cotton is key to resisting biodegradable materials. Subsidies make American farmers competitively priced internationally by reducing their costs. This ensures strong export sales.
However, subsidies disadvantage unsubsidized foreign cotton farmers, notably in Africa. They cannot match America's financial support.
Subsidies also burden taxpayers as farmers overproduce. From 2001-2004, growers received $10 billion in subsidies (Zachary, 2005). Higher taxes from subsidies raise living costs. This cost might be justified for critical needs but not cotton, which has limited demand.
The government claims subsidies uphold the industry. But paying Brazilian and French growers, too, shows maintaining America's lead as a top cotton producer drives subsidies, not caring for citizens. How far will taxpayers go to preserve the status quo?
While subsidies may be needed to sustain livelihoods, they require better controls to be effective. The government could reduce subsidy amounts, shift funds to more productive farming, and train cotton farmers.
REFERENCES
Zachary, P. (2005). 100% Rotten. CNN Money. Retrieved from
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2005/12/01/8364585/inde
x.htm
