As another year ends, it is time make balances. The government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso had the audacity to present in the press the balance of the subsidies that were given to certain sectors of the economy. The balance is tragic, not to say funny. The total amount given reached 42 thousand million "reals", which represents 4% of the GDP or 26% of all federal income. This value is more than the sum of all expenditures in education, health, agrarian reform, subsidized housing, food subsidies, in other words social expenditures. This alone shows what interests this government defends. But who is benefiting from these subsidies? Support is given mostly to exports: 14 thousand million reals. And that privileged minority that travels outside the country had a subsidy of 707 million reals in airport stores. So that they can buy imported products! Half of the subsidies offered to the export companies apply to the operations that import raw materials with the promise of re-exporting. This only benefits the multinational corporations that transform our ports into mere intermediary ports in order to obtain subsidies. For example, this policy was responsible for the destruction of the cultivation of the castor oil plant seed that supplied 18 oil and derivative factories. With the subsidy for imports,15 of the 18 existing industries went bankrupt and the three that remain prefer to import the castor oil plant seed from India for later re-exportation. But what is the true result of this blind policy that only benefits the exports? It destroyed many national sectors, didn't generate employment, and furthermore, produced a deficit in the commercial balance. In agriculture In general the subsidies for agriculture follow the same perverse logic as general economic policy. The total volume of subsidies given to Brazilian agriculture in the year 2000 was barely 350 million reals. This adds up to about 200 million destined to equalize the interest rate in the Pronaf to the small farmers and settlers. And the remainder as a subsidy for the cooperatives that made previous purchase of production. In other words, there was no subsidy for national agricultural production, nor for the medium and large producers, much less for the 4 million family farmers. But on the reverse side of the coin, for the big landowners, the government found other forms for guaranteeing their privileges. Among the 700 thousand farmers that had an accumulated debt of 24 billion reals, from rural credit with the Bank of Brazil, the majority are still involved in interminable negotiations with local managers. But the 14 thousand major debtors, that owed 15 billion (60% of the total debt) organized by the rural parliamentary group, was able to rapidly renegotiate their debts, which cost the national treasury, just in that year, close to 2.2 billion reals. Is it good to give subsidies to small farmers? Agriculture is a very particular productive activity, that depends on many natural factors, that do not depend on man, nor on capital. Furthermore it is responsible for the nourishment of society. As a result all governments of developed countries adopt direct subsidiary policies for the farmers. The main objective is to maintain activity, avoid rural exodus, stimulate production and create more competition in the external market. The total subsidy in those countries in 1999, was 361 billion dollars. Divided by the number of agricultural families from these countries, the annual average received by each family was 11 thousand dollars! Now the government of FHC prefers that we continue importing milk, cheese, canary seed, rice, beans, mineral water, etc... and that we spend 5 thousand million dollars per year on agricultural products. This is instead of producing here, which would generate employment and income for millions of agricultural families. The government is not concerned with maintaining the same rules of the international market. There is a law bill agreed upon by all leaders of different parties, sleeping in the draws of congress for various years now, that establishes the equivalence of tariffs on agricultural products. It would mean that if one country has a tariff to import a determined product, Brazil should apply the same tariff, if that country decides to export to us. It is currently rusting in the congress because of direct pressure from minister Pedro Malan. The multinations of Europe and the United States are grateful to their minister, now residing in Brazilia. Like professor Maria da Conceicao Tavares who had Malan as a student says, the government of FHC is a mere consul of North American interests in our country. * Joao Pedro Stedile is a member of the National Direction of the Landless Workers Movement (MST).