Sunday, August 15, 2004
day 80/reason 21: anything for a buck (the Columbia can take it!)
When Bush was in town on Friday he promised $15 million for the Columbia River dredging project which has been approved by Oregon and Washington state agencies.
Despite the approval by state environmental agencies, many fisherman are convinced that this project will have a detrimental effect on Columbia River fisheries, especially the Columbia estuary crab bed. However, in the name of international trade, subsidy farmers and other business people have lobbied hard for this plan which is predicted to cost $133 million and to take 15 years to complete.
My problem with this project is the likelihood that we'll spend all this money, irrevocably damage the river habitat, and then in 15 years when it's done, the northwest will not gain economic benefits from the project.
Taxpayers end up paying an awful lot to support industries that perhaps should be overhauled (no pun intended). For example, we currently subsidize wheat farmers so that they can compete with wheat prices abroad.
Forget for the moment the dubious ethics of this policy which actually encourages countries like Africa to import wheat instead of growing it, increasing the insecurity of their food supply. (Besides, if we create food insecurity, we can always sweep in like white knights to provide famine relief, thereby having nice "compassionate" soundbites to offset our aggresive foreign policies.)
If we do this dredging project, American taxpayers will be doubly subsidizing wheat farmers and other businesses which depend on tax breaks and subsidies to remain competive internationally. Instead of pouring all this money into the river, what if we used it for R&D to create products that could be sold for export without subsidies? Or that could be sold within this country?
¶ 10:45 PM
When Bush was in town on Friday he promised $15 million for the Columbia River dredging project which has been approved by Oregon and Washington state agencies.
Despite the approval by state environmental agencies, many fisherman are convinced that this project will have a detrimental effect on Columbia River fisheries, especially the Columbia estuary crab bed. However, in the name of international trade, subsidy farmers and other business people have lobbied hard for this plan which is predicted to cost $133 million and to take 15 years to complete.
My problem with this project is the likelihood that we'll spend all this money, irrevocably damage the river habitat, and then in 15 years when it's done, the northwest will not gain economic benefits from the project.
Taxpayers end up paying an awful lot to support industries that perhaps should be overhauled (no pun intended). For example, we currently subsidize wheat farmers so that they can compete with wheat prices abroad.
Forget for the moment the dubious ethics of this policy which actually encourages countries like Africa to import wheat instead of growing it, increasing the insecurity of their food supply. (Besides, if we create food insecurity, we can always sweep in like white knights to provide famine relief, thereby having nice "compassionate" soundbites to offset our aggresive foreign policies.)
If we do this dredging project, American taxpayers will be doubly subsidizing wheat farmers and other businesses which depend on tax breaks and subsidies to remain competive internationally. Instead of pouring all this money into the river, what if we used it for R&D to create products that could be sold for export without subsidies? Or that could be sold within this country?
¶ 10:45 PM
