Haley Barbour and the Regressive Economics of Farm Subsidies

Farm subsidies are the most popular form of corporate cronyism among many Republicans.  Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, this regressive form of 'progressive' market intervention garners enthusiastic support from Republican presidential contenders, especially preceding the Iowa Caucuses.  Haley Barbour is the latest potential presidential candidate to prostrate on the altar of the farm lobby and support the $20 billion fleecing of the taxpayer.  Even with the exit of John Thune from the presidential sweepstakes, the farm lobby still boasts many champions of taxpayer handouts among the 2012 hopefuls.

Yesterday, in an interview with the Daily Caller, Barbour offered the following counterintuitive economic justification of government intervention in the food market.  Here are some of his greatest hits:

“What we want to have in the United States is abundant food at a responsibly low price. To do that, we have to have an appropriately large supply of agricultural products. When sales volumes are good, prices are reasonable, there shouldn’t be any farm subsidies. But for natural reasons, nature, or what other countries are doing in terms of how they’re handling their markets, sometimes it is appropriate to have farm subsidies.”

“What you want is to have policies that lead to ample supply and prices that yield good prices for the person at the grocery store but profits for the farmers.”

Let's expound upon Barbour's economic theory.  Barbour opines that government subsidies, most of which go to wealthy farmers, are often indispensable because they increase food supply and lower prices at the grocery store during rough times.  Well, why is food inflation dramatically rising, even as farmers continue to receive record levels of subsidies?  Indeed every American (at least those who are not on food stamps) is suffering from the lack of "good prices" at the grocery store.

Haley Barbour, 2012, and the Need for a Focus on Illegal Immigration

Haley Barbour has been under fire for his stance on immigration after Time Magazine published a Justice Department filing showing that Barbour lobbied for amnesty.  The filings show that Barbour was part of a lobbying team that was commissioned by the Mexican embassy to lobby for a pathway to citizenship for illegals in 2001. 

Here are some of the details about the amnesty provisions that he was seeking.

At the time, Mexico was seeking an extension of a provision that allowed undocumented immigrants living in the United States to receive legal visas or green cards without returning to their country of origin, provided they pay an additional fine. In practice, the provision generally helped out undocumented family members of legal immigrants or undocumented immigrants who were eligible for visas based upon certain job skills. Without the provision in place, undocumented immigrants who received legal papers had to return to their country of origin, for three or 10 years, before returning to the U.S. The Congressional Research Service estimated that an extension would put benefit about 300,000 undocumented immigrants.

At first, I was hesitant to excogitate any further on this issue because it appeared to be yet another hatchet job on Haley Barbour from the liberal media.  Any conservative must always be circumspect of any liberal exposé about a conservative deviating from conservatism.  After all, they certainly have no penchant for our views.