Bush wants to cover one subsidy with another

From Roger Thurow and John McKinnon in the WSJ...

The Bush administration called for an emergency increase in U.S. aid to alleviate the global food-price spike, as the administration and its allies seek to use the crisis to push for major changes in the way the world community manages the fight against hunger.

President Bush proposed $770 million in aid as soaring prices are bringing what some say could be the worst hunger crisis in 30 years. The money, if approved by Congress, would come on top of $200 million that the Bush administration released two weeks ago for emergency international food aid and would bring the total for U.S. efforts to combat global hunger to about $5 billion for 2008 and 2009.

OK, let's get this straight. We subsidize farmers-- and then we subsidize them further to produce ethanol. This diverts land from producing food to producing (an inefficient) fuel, driving up the price of food. Then, we subsidize those who cannot afford the now-more-expensive food. Uhhh...

Then the article takes a more interesting angle: the way in which the aid is delivered-- whether American-grown food sent to African consumers (which does little to help the poor grow their own food-- and actually undermines the market incentives) vs. directly aiding African farmers. Clearly, the latter is better for Africa. But just as clearly, American farmers will prefer the former.