Brazil Trade Case Exposes Deficiencies In US Cotton Subsidies

American taxpayers should be grateful to cotton farmers in Brazil and Brazil.

This may sound strange, but it is no longer surprising that the Obama Administration recently agreed to pay $147 million 300 thousand a year to settle the international trade dispute between Brazil and the United States on cotton subsidies.

In fact, Washington can continue to provide about 3 billion US dollars per year for us cotton growers after the US pays the money.

So what do you want to thank? The Brazil case exposes the true situation of the US Cotton Subsidy Scheme: cotton subsidies are not only a waste of certain special interests, but also hamper free and fair trade, which makes it unnecessary to complicate the relationship between the United States and other countries in the world.

Reform - or, improve, cancel - but it's too late.

Since 1991, the federal government has spent $about 50000000000 to support cotton growers, with an average annual subsidy of $about 3000000000 over the past 10 years.

Most of the subsidies are provided to large, politically related agribusinesses, located in the sunshine zone, although prisoners in Arkansas prison have received some cash.

Partly because of these subsidies, American cotton producers beat the less expensive producers in the world market, and American farms account for about 40% of global exports.

In 2002, Brazil complained to the World Trade Organization about the issue of cotton subsidies in the United States. Brazil said that the US cotton subsidy program violated the international free trade agreement advocated by the United States.

After some time, the WTO agreed to authorize Brazil to impose retaliatory tariffs on other products in the United States.

Brazil threatened to use WTO's authorization to retaliate against us products, from wheat to software, forcing the Obama administration to spend money on truce last month.

In short, the US cotton industry is dependent on subsidies, and subsidies are against international trade agreements. Therefore, subsidies are a waste of taxpayers' money and a threat to other American exporters and the employment opportunities they offer.

Four congressmen -- Democrat John Ron Kind (Wisconsin), Barney Frank Barney Frank (Massachusetts), Republican Jeff Flake Jeff Flake (Arizona) and Paul Ruian Paul D. Ryan (Wisconsin) recently wrote to the president, who said that the cotton program "rapidly became a dependence on future trade growth."

Instead of effectively reforming our plan, we pay US $147 million 300 thousand annually to Brazil agricultural enterprises. Only in this way can we continue to pay approximately $3 billion annually to large US integrated agricultural enterprises. "

Of course, the federal government must borrow most of the money for 147 million 300 thousand dollars and 3 billion dollars.

If this regrettable event can not make Washington ashamed and end this farce, then nothing will make Washington ashamed.