CARE's decision to turn down US food aid

Here is an LA Times editorial that eloquently and entertainingly explains why a major poverty-relief org would turn down major federal food aid. It comes down to subsidies again...
--------------------------------------------
No thanks, and keep your farm aid
Taking a stand against U.S. subsidies that help cripple Third World economies.
August 24, 2007

If a charity stops taking your money, you've got to be doing something pretty shady. Historically, you could invent dynamite, beat up striking workers, build defective Xboxes, write a column about hating dogs -- and your check would still get cashed. So when CARE, the giant poverty-relief organization, stops taking $45 million a year in indirect food aid from the U.S. government, it is a strong indicator of some impressive sleaziness going down in D.C.

One of the smartest ways to get away with sleaze is to involve farmers. Now, I like farmers, mostly because they make food, of which I am a huge fan. But they're not, as is often claimed, a cornerstone of democracy, national security or morality. They're the remnants of a job field that, because of technology, has been shrinking since its inception. Farmers are just a half-step up from fire starters and cave painters.

But the U.S. government uses our irrational, Mellencampian love of farmers to kick back taxpayer money to the giant agribusinesses, such as Archer Daniels Midland Co., that fund political campaigns. So the $45 million CARE got isn't sent to poor people in the form of something useful, like cash. Instead, it'sused to fund a complicated scheme that only a huge bureaucracy or a really dumb money launderer would concoct.

The $45 million is used to buy food from American agribusinesses, which is then given to CARE and sent to impoverished nations by way of U.S. shipping companies. This food is not delivered to poor people. Instead, it is sold on the open local market for the highest price possible.

The resulting revenue -- which is about 75% of the original aid money -- is used to fund programs for the poor and hungry. I would not be surprised if at some point the food also has to be driven back and forth across that bridge-to-nowhere in Alaska.

But that waste isn't the main reason CARE made its difficult decision, which could allow more human suffering in the near term. Neither is the fact that shipping Nebraskan corn and reselling it in Micronesia, which typically takes five months, isn't the fastest way to help people whose village has been swept away by a tsunami.

The real problem is that we're going commie all over the Third World, and it's having Soviet-style results. Every U.S.-subsidized bag of soybeans we sell to a vegetable oil company in Kenya means less demand for oil-producing crops from a local sunflower farmer. And even if that soy money builds a cool medical clinic, it's going to be a little less cool to the unemployed sunflower farmer.

This scenario is a microcosm of how U.S. corn, soy, cotton, rice and sugar subsidies drive Third World workers out of one of the few businesses available to them. Farm-subsidy rules are to capitalism what Abu Ghraib is to democracy -- only in addition to infuriating foreigners, subsidy rules also bore them.

So CARE is betting that its decision will push Congress to rethink its "buy American" aid policies. "I think people are becoming more sophisticated and understand that if we don't make economies more self-sufficient, we're just perpetuating these cycles of poverty," said Helene Gayle, CARE president and chief executive. "They're starting to understand that this doesn't help in the long run."

She may be right. CARE actually started rejecting indirect food aid more than a year ago, but it was only reported on now that the increasingly controversial farm bill is before Congress.

While Europe, Canada and the U.N. have gotten out of monetizing food aid, the U.S. has amped its program: In 1990, less than 4% of food aid shipments were put through the laundering scheme -- now almost 20% is, which has reduced the actual dollar amount of aid poor people get by 43% over the last five years. Dumping even a small amount of underpriced food can really mess up a small local market, says Cornell University economist Christopher Barrett. "A Kenyan trader told me, 'I don't mind that these guys are competing with me in the market. I just mind that they compete so stupidly. They make the markets so volatile.' " Asking aid workers to run global commodity markets makes about as much sense as letting them talk about what they do at a party.

So until the Democratic Congress gets some guts and, at the very least, approves President Bush's plan to require that 25% or more of food aid be bought locally, I'm giving money to CARE, starting with my pre-tax earnings from this column. If the government isn't willing to save Africa, I'm betting journalism money will.

jstein@latimescolumnists.com

Farm Bill update and Sample letter to Senate

Just an update on the Farm Bill. Very little press about it lately because Congress is still on recess. When the Senate comes back, it will begin its deliberations. Sen Durbin (D-IL) and Sen Lugar (R-IN) will be the two to watch to push for reform. Letters written to our senators now should reach them before this debate reaches the floor. Here are some example points to push for:

"The farm bill that came out of the House of Representatives did not address the inequities of the commodity payment system. Please make sure the Senate version of the farm bill:
1) reforms farm commodity payments to provide more fairness to struggling family farmers in the U.S. & in developing countries
2) includes significant improvements to nutrition, rural development and conservation."

Of course, you'd want to rewrite that in your own words. That one came from the Bread for the World. Good luck!

Bread for the World Update: Support Rural Communities

A message from Bread for the World...
-----------------
It’s been said that the US farm bill should actually be named the “rural development bill” because it provides much of the federal support for rural areas. As the 2007 farm bill takes shape in Congress, Bread for the World is calling for broad reform. A key component of our Offering of Letters campaign is to strengthen rural communities.

The farm bill originated during the Great Depression to help people in rural areas. Today, the goal remains the same, but the rural landscape has changed dramatically. In the 1930’s, nearly 25% of the US population worked in agriculture. Now, less than 2% of all Americans work on farms, and most rural jobs are in service industries. So commodity payment programs- a major component to the farm bill- cannot be a substitute for wider rural development efforts. To remain true to its original intent, the farm bill needs to expand its programs to support rural America in its reality today.

Hunger and poverty are more common in rural areas, and many rural counties have lost population as people move away for better jobs and services. Mines, factories and big box stores open and close contributing to “boom and bust” cycles. To break this cycle, it’s essential to promote entrepreneurship and strengthen infrastructure. In the past, funds authorized for rural water quality, firefighters and other vital services have been meager and sometimes non-existent.

There’s no quick solution for rural challenges. But many strategies show promise- from increasing entrepreneurship and attracting a diverse business base to improving access to technology. Previously, rural development programs have generally been small and low priority. Bread for the World is urging Congress to give rural development greater visibility and more resources. Only then, will more rural communities be able to find solutions that work.