Loading...
The Rural Voice, 2002-07, Page 10A NEW CONCEPT FOR HANDLING BALES • two 5 1/2" augers provide positive gentle lift • eliminates troublesome chains • space saving vertical positioning • reverse for loading out of mow 4 • low maintenance — durable Delron bearings • all drive and controls conveniently at ground level AUG -A -BALE also Mbw systems - installation evadable WEBER LANE MFG. (1990) CO. R R 4. Listowel. ON N4W 3G9 For Sales 8 Service call: Weber s Farm Service 519-664-1185 BARN RENOVATIONS • Renovations to farm buildings • Concrete Work • Manure Tanks • Using a Bobcat Skid Steer w/hydraulic hammer, bucket, six -way blade & backhoe BEUERMANN CONSTRUCTION R.R. #5 BRUSSELS 519-887-9598 or 519-887-8447 6 THE RURAL VOICE Robert Mercer Trading trade principles for politics Robert Mercer was editor of the Broadwater Market Letter and commentator for 25 years. The U.S. President George Bush only managed to get elected after the longest recount in U.S. history. He has not forgotten that. Re-election is no sure thing for him. Thus, domestic policy appears to overshadow any policy initiatives, especially where foreign trade is concerned. Six months or so ago, freer trade still seemed possible with liberalization talk at the World Trade organization's Doha round, which is central to agriculture and the developing nations. Now it seems that Mr. Bush has put politics above principle. American negotiators in Geneva (WTO headquarters) may have been talking about freer trade in agriculture, but with the new blunderbuss approach of scattering dollars over the farm landscape, Washington politicians are sending American farmers exactly the opposite message. A message not lost on Canadian farmers, Europeans or those in the third world countries. In faci Ottawa's reply to the U.S. Farm Bill is a rescue package of $5.2 billion over six years shared with the provinces on a 60/40 cost sharing, or $8.1 billion in total. That all depends on the provinces sharing in the cost on what is seen as a trade policy problem of Federal responsibility, not provincial. It's not a done deal. America's commitment to free trade under the Bush administration shrivels when it runs into political pressures at home. Steel, softwood lumber and agriculture provide votes in the critical November election State of West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania (steel); in the southern states (lumber) and Iowa, South Dakota and Missouri (agriculture). So what has Europe threatened to do about this blatantly political rigging of transatlantic tariff barriers? Well, they read between the lines even better than the Americans and they have been doing it for years with the Common Agricultural Policy which has been by far the most expensive farm subsidy package until now. Europe has threatened tit-for-tat reciprocal tariffs against U.S. steel protection tariffs under the WTO, to hit Mr. Bush where it hurts the most — right in the sensitive agricultural electoral districts. They intend to hike tariffs on such U.S. products as textiles (North Carolina) and Tropicana orange juice (Florida). As the WTO round got underway the E.U. was reluctant to put agriculture on the table. The U.S. led the battle against agricultural protection as it has done before, especially against the E.U. and Japan. Now they have opened the very expensive double doors for a flood of subsidy cash greater than anything Europe has now. For the cynical, it is now easy to link trade distorting policies of the U.S. with political vote -catching in an election year and further down the political map, for presidential re-election. But also looking a little deeper into the backyard mire of farm policy development, it is possible to suggest the U.S. subsidies are fashioned by commodity lobby groups and agri-business. The real winners from the U.S. Farm Bill will be the ten per cent of farmers who claim 75 per cent of the cash handed out, and the corporate traders who win on product volume and turn over, not market price. This whole shift in agricultural support programs could not only harm national treasuries, but destroy the whole thrust of the new WTO round of talks. That would be more than a farm disaster.0