Matching Grant Challenge
alexPureWhen I met Alexander Cockburn, one of his first questions to me was: “Is your hate pure?” It was the question he asked most of the young writers he mentored. These were Cockburn’s rules for how to write political polemics: write about what you care about, write with passion, go for the throat of your enemies and never back down. His admonitions remain the guiding stylesheet for our writers at CounterPunch. Please help keep the spirit of this kind of fierce journalism alive by taking advantage of  our matching grant challenge which will DOUBLE every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, CounterPunch will get a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate. –JSC (This photo of Alexander Cockburn and Jasper, on the couch that launched 1000 columns, was taken in Petrolia by Tao Ruspoli)
 Day 19

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

pp1

or
cp-store

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Crushing Small Farms at Home, Destroying Third World Farmers Abroad

US Agricultural Policy is Destructive

by NEAL GALLOWAY

United States agriculture policy is outdated, harmful to small farmers and devastating to third world countries trying to make a profit by growing crops. The basic situation is as follows: in the wake of the Great Depression, subsidy programs were put into place initially as temporary measures, to help farmers during an economic crisis.

According to the USDA’s website, in the 1930s about 25% of the U.S. population lived and worked on the nation’s six million small farms and these subsidies protected the livelihood of farmers — at that time about a quarter of the country’s population. However, by 1997 about 157,000 large farms accounted for 72% of farm sales, with only two percent of the U.S. population residing on farms.

This changing of the American farming landscape without a significant change in agricultural subsidies policy has created a system that encourages overproduction of crops. Farmers (mostly large scale farmers, or corporate farmers) produce as much of a product as they can. Since they are guaranteed a minimum price by the U.S. government, whatever cost of production the market value of their crops do not cover, the government makes up the difference.

So what happens to all the extra crops that Americans don’t eat?

All the extra crops are dumped onto the international market which drives the prices of those goods lower than the cost to grow them. This is simply devastating to the many countries who base their wellfare on agriculture. Take the cotton industry. According to Oxfam America, a non-profit organization dedicated to ending world poverty, more than ten million people in West and Central African countries earn their livelihoods from cotton production.

Oxfam says, "The United States is the world’s largest exporter and subsidizer of cotton, spending nearly four billion a year on subsidies … this is roughly three times the entire U.S. aid budget for Africa’s 500 million people." The resultant overproduction and dumping of cotton on the world market, drives the price of cotton below what it takes to produce, even in small countries where the cost of production is lower than in the U.S.

Farmers in these agriculture-dependant countries are unable to sell their crops for profit. As a result, these farmers cannot afford to educate their children, obtain decent housing and clothing or even feed themselves or their families. The continued support of U.S. agricultural subsidies policies in the United States should not be considered a political slight, but rather a violation of human rights.

Even within the United States, agricultural subsides clearly benefit large scale corporate farms and not small family owned farms. According to a press release from Oxfam, the largest ten percent of cotton farms receive three quarters of total payment. In 2001, ten farms received $17 million between them. And this kind of statistic holds true across other kinds of crops that the U.S. government also subsidizes.

Both at home and abroad, the current farm bill, the legislation under which subsidies fall, is harmful to the livelihoods of people who are attempting (and in many cases obligated) to make a living from farming. This year, Congress will vote on a new farm bill. I hope that they recognize the harm that a continuation of current legislation will cause and create a new farm bill that stops rewarding the lobbying corporate farms and takes the lives of millions of farmers worldwide into careful consideration.

NEAL GALLOWAY writes for the The Collegian, the student paper at the University of Tulsa, where this article originally appeared.