As House Republicans try to light a fire under Nancy Pelosi to revive the U.S.-Colombia Free-Trade Agreement, news comes that New Zealand has inked a free-trade deal with China, opening China’s fast-growing markets to New Zealand’s farmers. There are two points worth making in response.

First, while New Zealand’s government is opening up an unprecedented export opportunity for its farmers, ours is letting election-year politics get in the way of a similar (though not as lucrative) deal. The Colombia FTA would immediately eliminate tariffs on over half of all U.S. agricultural exports to Colombia by value, with almost all of the rest to be phased out over the next five years. But Pelosi is holding the agreement hostage to a list of unspecified and unrelated demands.

Second, our government apparently prefers to keep farmers on welfare rather than open markets for them. By contrast, New Zealand is a case study for why agricultural subsidies are inefficient and unnecessary. In 1984, New Zealand’s government pulled the plug on all government assistance to farmers, and the catastrophes many predicted never occurred:

Forced to adjust to new economic realities, New Zealand farmers cut costs, diversified their land use, sought non-farm income opportunities and altered production as market signals advised — for example, by reducing sheep numbers and boosting cattle ranching. Farmers were aided on the cost side as input prices fell, because suppliers could no longer count on subsidies to inflate demand.

Today, New Zealand’s agricultural sector is thriving, and its government is cutting trade deals to give its farmers even greater opportunities. Meanwhile, our government gives farmers billions in handouts while dragging its feet on market-opening deals. It just doesn’t make any sense, if you think about it.