The Guardian has an editorial entitled Time to narrow the gap that revisits the agricultural subsidies that most libertarians and many conservatives rightly despise. It points out the Bush administration's subsidy hikes, and notes that due to the EU's agricultural subsidies, Scandinavian farmers can turn a profit from growing sugar beets, a crop that grows far better in warm climates.
Keegan points out that eliminating subsidies is a win-win situation for just about everybody, as consumers pay less for their food, farmers will be able to grow food that brings them the most profit, and poor African and Asian nations will be able to compete in the marketplace in wealthier nations.
I've blogged on this subject before, as I think the subsidies are the worst aspect of the Bush administration, and one of the few areas where he has not come even close to his campaign pledges. Instead of reducing subsidies, he has dramatically increased them. Instead of eliminating tariffs, he has hiked them (Steel, textiles, and lumber are just three examples).