The article seems to be shittily written in my opinion but I figure if you watch the video (about a minute) it will get the point across.
My question lies in, do you think this will benefit the health of the people moving forward, or do you fear it being weaponized to endorse or threaten companies to comply with the mention of Kennedy being tied to its future as mentioned in the end of the article
I didn’t propose anything.
But your summary makes absolutely no sense. A tax on manufactured corn syrup after subsidizing corn is functionally the same thing as removing the subsidy for just corn used to make corn syrup.
Farm subsidies do have an important goal, and that seeming contradiction still supports that. It’s important for any society to ensure a relatively stable and productive food industry. Subsidies help farmers stay in business and producing at least enough, even if they are giant agribusinesses. It’s important that we always have enough of staple crops like corn. How can we tune that to deemphasize corn syrup, and support bigger and cheaper supply chains for healthier foods?
How do you support corn but not corn syrup? One way is to subsidize corn production but add a tax to that portion that turns into corn syrup
Yeah, that’s basically what I’m saying.
I didn’t make the argument about the value of subsidies because the actual details of how they encourage domestic farming is above my pay grade, but subsidizing then taxing the specific use that’s damaging is way more “removing the active incentive to do harmful stuff” than it is [whatever his argument is?].