How make subsidies actually work.

To whom this may concern,

            There is a serious problem in this country. The government has immense power to shape the economy, and it does so in many ways, however when it comes to shaping the agricultural sector, it both abuses and neglects its authority. Subsidies are regularly handed out to businesses and people who either don’t need them or shouldn’t even be eligible to apply. At the same time, many individuals and small businesses that benefit society and the environment receive inadequate subsidies, if they receive any at all. I have a proposed solution that would improve the system and help support small businesses. This all relies on law makers making decisions based on morally correct motives and a desire to help people and preserve the environment, therefore I expect nothing that I will discuss to ever actually happen, however I feel that my ideas have at least enough value to be considered.

            I propose that all current subsidies be cut entirely and replaced with an entirely new system. To start I believe that all new subsidies should be inversely proportional to the size of the business receiving the said subsidy. The benefits of this are twofold. One benefit is that it promotes local small-scale businesses which must compete against large scale corporations who do not have the same risk and variability associated with small scale agriculture. The other is that it incentives new business which inherently start at the smaller scale. A modifier should then be applied to this subsidy based on the efficiency and environmental impact of the recipient. This would be applied in a layered approach. First an increase would be applied proportional to the density of the yield, i.e. the yield per area of land. Next deductions would be made based on environment impacts made by the business. These impacts would consist of things such as water consumption, soil depletion, chemical pollution, etc. Most importantly, though, would be a carbon footprint reduction based on the total emissions from farm to consumer, meaning that deductions would be applied for transportation, therefore promoting local agriculture and reducing carbon pollution.

            Systems like this inherently have their flaws however, so various modifications would have to be made. To start with, there would have to be a change in the carbon emission deduction for food being transported to areas that are ill-suited for local agriculture, or seasonally in places where local agriculture is only viable for part of the year. All subsidies would have to change based the crop as well, seeing as every crop has its own unique requirement to grow. All this being said, if this system were adopted, there would be an increase in locally grown food, a drop in the prices of produce, and both an increase in crop yield and a decrease in the environmental impact of agriculture. It is not about making big drastic changes in regulation or having radical views on environmentalism, it is about making the path toward sustainability and affordability the path that will be the most profitable for the producers. This way everyone ones, from the environment, to the impoverished, and even the businesses, but of course not the people in power who are currently milking the system for all it is worth. So, like I said, this will never happen, because it makes to much sense, and therefore isn’t profitable for the only people who could make it happen, but at least we are able to at least discuss an option that most people agree is better than what we have right now.