Victory In The Trade Case Reveals That The US Cotton Subsidy Is A Waste.

　　 Us taxpayers We should thank the cotton farmers of the ho ho ho. This may sound strange, but it is no longer surprising that the government recently agreed to pay $147 million 300 thousand a year to settle the international trade disputes caused by 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 is it to thank? The case reveals the truth 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 been supporting cotton Growers have spent $about 50000000000 over the past 10 years, with an average subsidy of $about 3000000000 per year. Most of the subsidies are provided to large, politically related agribusinesses, which are located in the sunshine zone, although prisoners in cotton planting in the state prison also receive 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, he complained to the World Trade Organization about the issue of cotton subsidies in the United States, saying that the US Cotton Subsidy Scheme violated the international free trade agreement advocated by the United States. After waiting for some time, the WTO agreed to authorize the Levy of retaliatory tariffs on other products in the United States. The threat will use vengeance's authorization to retaliate against us products, from wheat to software, forcing the government to spend money on truce last month.

In short, American cotton industry Subsidies depend on subsidies and violate international trade agreements, so 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 Barney Frank (Massachusetts), Republican Jeff Flake Jeff Flake (Arizona), and Paul 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 $147 million 300 thousand annually to the agriculture and agricultural enterprises. Only in this way can we continue to pay approximately $3 billion annually to the large US comprehensive 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.