The US Government stopped subsidising corn and started subsidising physical books with the same amount of money?
I can't say I'm an expert on the reasons behind corn being subsidised, however, from what I do know, this seems like a reasonable idea with many potential benefits.
On the not-subsidising-corn side:
1. Less high-fructose corn syrup and corn products in food. This could well lead to less obesity (and fewer corn allergies/sensitivities).
2. It could potentially lead to a wider variety of food crops being grown. More diversity in what we eat is always good.
3. Take that, Monsanto. That's all I have to say.
On the subsidising books side:
1. Books would be cheaper, leading to more people buying them, leading to more people reading them, leading to greater literacy rates.
2. Physical bookstores and other kinds of retailers of physical books, which (I'm pretty sure) employ more people and at greater pay rates than corn farming does, would be able to create more jobs.
3. Another good idea - subsidise books made from recycled paper at higher rates than books made from non-recycled paper. That could have serious environmental benefits.
Now, keep in mind, I'm just a teenager who doesn't really know much about how subsidies work. This is just how I see things, and I could well be wrong. But I just wanted to throw this idea out there and see what people thought.