[질문]번역-Farm subsidies of U.S.

[서진선]

밑줄 친 부분만 부탁드립니다. 헷...

미국의 농업보조금에 대한 워싱턴 포스트의 글입니다. 내용이 재미있길래 많이 올렸어요.^^

많은 선진국들이 보조금 정책을 펴고 있고 그로인해 피해를 보는 국가들도 보이네요. 우리나라는 특히 쌀에 대해 보호적인 입장을 취하는데요 아마 미국의 경우는 목화 등에 특히 보호정책을 취할 것 같긴 합니다. 아프리카 목화 생산 국가들이 WTO회의에서 미국과 유럽의 보조금정책에 대해 항의 했었죠.

The farm legislation proceeding through Congress symbolizes much of what's wrong with Washington. It's government by inertia. We do today what we did yesterday, because politicians draw their power from distributing benefits and various interest groups feel entitled to receive them -- even if they serve no defensible public purpose. Our extravagant farm programs capture the absurdity as well as any other. Since 1970, farm subsidies have totaled $578 billion, according to the historical tables of the U.S. budget. What has the public gotten for this vast outlay? Not much. Food would be produced without subsidies. Roughly 90 percent of commodity payments go to farmers raising grains (wheat, corn), soybeans, cotton and rice; these products represent about a fifth of farm cash receipts.

If subsidies vanished, some high-cost farms would cut production or switch crops. Some land values would drop because one source of income (federal payments) would disappear. Still, food supplies would be ample. The proof: the rest of agriculture that manages without federal largess. (중략) Farm subsidies date to the Great Depression. In 1932, there were 6.7 million farms, and the farm population was 25 percent of the nation's total. By 2002, the number of farms had dwindled to 2.1 million, and the farm population was about 2 percent of the total. More mechanization, better seeds and cultivation practices have enabled fewer, bigger farms to produce more food. There is often a life cycle in government programs. They start for good cause or with good intentions, then perpetuate themselves by creating a protective web of interests (중략) The policies continued after World War II, justified by the notion that farmers' incomes were low and that farmers -- subject to erratic weather and wild swings in crop prices -- were more vulnerable to market forces than most Americans. Neither assumption now holds. In 1934, per capita farm income was 33 percent of non-farm incomes; in 2004, farm household incomes (a slightly different measure) were 26 percent above the U.S. average. Nor are farmers uniquely vulnerable to economic instability. Competitive pressures -- from trade, new technologies, corporate takeovers, deregulation -- have increased insecurity for almost everyone.

Government has a legitimate role in agriculture to ensure food safety, oversee the environment, and promote research and development. But most of today's farm programs are simply income transfers from consumers and taxpayers to farmers. Aside from their costs, these programs actually damage American interests. Global trade negotiations are stalled in part because the United States and other countries won't end farm subsidies and protections. The irony is that, as the world's largest food exporter, the United States would be better off if all subsidies vanished, though some American producers (sugar, cotton) might suffer. Farming has become the economy's most pampered, protected and subsidized sector. Mandates for ethanol, which raise demand for corn but save little crude oil, are the latest unjustified promotion. That's in addition to the subsidies in the farm bill: easily $50 billion from 2008 to 2012 in the bill passed by the House. The Senate will soon debate its version. When Republicans passed the last major farm bill in 2002, its lavish cost signaled that they weren't serious about controlling the budget. Now the Democrats are doing the same.

[완전지대]

왜냐하면 정치인들은 혜택을 분배하는 것에서, 그리고 그러한 혜택을 받을 자격이 있다고 생각하는 다양한 이익집단들로부터 정치적인 힘(지지)를 이끌어 낼 수 있기 때문이다. // 이에 대한 증거로서 정부의 보조금 없이도 (농작물을) 생산할 수 있는 이외의 농가들을 보면 알 수 있다.

[dearalice]

완전지대님의 두 번째 해석에 동감합니다. 첫번째 해석은 좀 다른데요. "왜냐하면 정치인들은 혜택의 배분을 통해 권력을 이끌어내고, 다양한 이익집단들은 스스로 그러한 혜택들을 받을 자격이 있다고 생각하기 때문이다." 굳이 의미를 따지자면, 별로 그렇게 다른 것도 아닌 듯하지만요 :)

[완전지대]

dearalice 님 해석이 맞네요. 제가 various interest groups who feel로 잘못봤습니다.

[데키루다케]

저도 첫번째 해석은 윗분에 동의해요

[서진선]

고맙습니다. 활짝^-^* 이거 은근히 온라인 스터디(강의 받는 기분이지만) 되는 듯 한데요~*