Farm subsidies.....
 

Let me say first that contrary to what you might think I am a very open minded person and I am always interested in learning and especially in getting to the truth of matters. I have no problem with being shown that I am wrong and would rather admit to being wrong than to ignore the truth.

Since I think at heart we all believe that if we are in the agriculture business at whatever level we are "farmers" to some degree and we definitely have more in common than we have that isn't and we all would be better off if we understood each other rather than fighting I thought maybe we could try to have a series of discussions about farming and see if we can at least come to better understandings. :)

So this one is about farm subsidies and who gets them which will to some degree cover my definition of corporate farms.

First when I talk about "corporate farms" I don't necessarily mean size I mean mindset. Here in Arkansas for example we have rice farmers who get farm subsidies, then they create corporations and get a second and sometimes third payment. They had a really good article in the Democrat Gazette (the Little Rock and pretty much the Arkansas newspaper) but they only let you read articles if you subscribe. Otherwise I would try to find it and link it. So here is a link to who receives them in Arkansas:
http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=05000

According to that 77% of Arkansas farmers receive no subsidies at all. 10% of farmers collect 81% of the subsidies here. The highest receiver here is Adams Land Company and they get 1.3 million dollars a year in subsidies and they have annual sales of 5-10 million dollars.
http://www.manta.com/c/mmghr43/adams-land-co

I would call that a corporate farm assuming they actually do any farming at all. From what little info I can find they appear to be a cotton gin mostly. In the last 15 years they went from receiving $55 to $1.3 million in subsidies.

In the last 10 years we lost 660 dairy farms and we now do not generate enough dairy products to supply our state.

So here is my problem: if we had split up that $1.3 million and actually gave it to those who needed it would we have lost 660 small family farms? Why is it that those farm subsidies that are touted by the government as saving family farms doesn't actually go to them, it goes to the corporate farms at the top who already pull in enormous amounts of money to begin with?

And here is the real kicker: Between 1995 and 2009 the highest recipients of farm subsidies in Arkansas were rice farmers with a whopping $5,332,230,006 in subsidies. 49% of Arkansas rice does not go to feed Americans though, it is shipped overseas. So we spent $2.66 billion to feed Asia and the Middle East cheap rice. meanwhile here in America we have children who go to bed hungry every night.

Brilliant! That is just freaking insane!

Either you like subsidies or you don't. They don't go to dairy farmers because most of the time milk is above support prices. When it drops below then the smaller farmers reap more of the benefit since the amounts receivable under MILC are capped at certain production levels.
A lot of the smaller family farms go away because junior doesn't want to farm anymore. Much easier to lot the farm off or rent it out to the big guy down the road. Subsidies won't change that mindset......

There are many things I don't like about the farm program.

Perhaps neither of us want to get rid of it, but change it some. So perhaps we can agree that it could be better? :)

My concern with your message is that you rely upon the EWG to support - perhaps form - your opinion of the farm program.

EWG is a group heck-bent on being anti-agriculture. It seems their goal is to have everyone in the USA import food from south of the USA, and just destroy USA agriculture entirely.

This is the opinion of many, many farm groups and individual farmers. Many of these farm groups also have issues with the Farm Program, so it's not like they are just pro-govrt money either.... Most farmers I know pretty much hate the farm program; but if you don't go along with it you lose out on a lot of income & soon your neighbors will be farming your land....

EWG grossly mis-represnts facts with their database. Farmer for and against the farm program all dislike and think poorly of EWG and their anti-farmer platform.

Many of the 'farm payments' they report are actually loans, which need to be repaid or grain is forfieted to the Govt. These repayments or grain purchases are _not_ credited back to the govt by EWG. So the numbers you see can be off by _millions_ of dollars in individual cases.

Many of the payments EWG lists are for conservation programs. This is where environmental groups encourage the USA to lease land from private people for wildlife & hunting use. This has little to do with govt farm programs, but is hunting/ wildlife use of land. Those people with such leases have many expenses & costs to establish very specific, difficult mative plants, and maintain the land weed-free. I don't believe these payments should be considered any sort of farm program; but rather a hunter/wildlife program supported by hunters & tree-huggers. It has little to do with farming.

Many of the 'individuals' that EWG lists as big corporate farms - as in your example - are actually coops or Native American tribes or production hubs such as a gin, that collects the money due on a big area of crop, and redistributes that money to the individual farmers who bring in small loads of - in this example - cotton.

The farm program is available to any farmer over 10 acres (that limit is pretty new & I disagree with it - used to be any size farmer) that grows any of the program crops - in general grains, cotton, sugar. Most things that store easily and are commodity bulk crops. Stuff that gets traded world-wide and often is part of our national security, as well as international relations by embargoes, tarriffs, and other international manipulations.

If only 20% of the farmers in an area choose to be in the program or not, that is/was their choice. The farm program pays out on a per acre or per bushel or per 100-weight basis. Those farmers who raise more will collect more, and those with fewer acres will recieve less - that just reflects the size of a business.

So, I have a hard time finding any total failures in the system from what you have stated.

The real, actual, farm program is very different from the skewed picture EWG paints of it. It fairly offers the exact same payment to any farmer who chooses to be a part of the program.

It's nice out, I gotta go bale hay, but next time I'm on, hopefully I can share some of my concerns with the farm program, so this isn't a one-way street - I can voice my negative issues on it as well. :) Which you may agree with or not, as is our rights. :)

--->Paul

And you propose to.............??????
geo

I know the farm program it doesn`t help me much, we are to small.>Thanks Marc

Look at the bigger picture.

Do you want the U.S.A. to go back to subsistence agriculture? There would be lots of unhappy folks in the urban areas.

Do you want us to import the majority of our food supply? Many of the crop protection chemicals that are banned for use here are still being made and shipped south. Most of the crops that those are used on south of the border are shipped back north with little or no testing for residues.

IMO, the mindset of .gov since the depression has been a reilable and cheap food supply.

If you rummage around on the EWG site, find the names of the entities that get the big bucks. The rice cooperatives are at, or near the top. You will also find several non-profits up close to the top in total $. The Nature Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited.

I stated this in an earlier post: When a "farmer" fills out the paperwork for whatever subsidy he wishes to receive, the .gov has a good idea of what will be entering the food supply in the future.

As with all government programs there is fraud. A while back a guy down south got caught haveing his hired help sign part of his lands to bypass the cap. In my opinion there should be a hard firm $ limit /year. I don't care what it is, but once established enforce it. You will also notice those site state payments recieved in 10 or 15 year amounts. Large numbers have more effect. your idea of taking money from the big guy and giveing it to the small farmer? Can you say redistribution of wealth? Penalize the effective farmer and reward the unsuccessful. that is the way welfare works and makes people mad. Like I said put a cap on dollars paid or acres paid.

I just googled for statistics and that was the top site that came up. I have never been on the EWG site before today. :) So give me a site with more honest statistics and I guess we will start there.

I will say though the fact still stands that we heavily subsidise foods that we export. So you can not say it is all about a cheap and secure food supply for America. If we cut down half of what we produce no American would go hungry, we produce more than enough for us.

Now that is funny! The Farm program is redistribution of wealth for goodness sakes! I am not talking about taking from the rich to give to the poor I am saying only give subsidies to those who need them and people making $5 to $10 million a year don't need a subsidy.

PATT, Absolutely it is as is school lunch program, medicaid, government support for your local airport, tree planting programs, student loans, public schools, insulating peoples houses, tax breaks for new hhomes, or solar the list goes on. The point is as we see with illegal immigration, gulf oil spill and the financial crisis, there are regulations and laws in place that are not enforced. Maybe if the government actually enforced the system in place, we could see how it actually works and then if need be change it or do away with it all together. The people complaining about government welfare be it farm programs, or welfare should look around and see the amount of welfare they are benefiting from it is amazing.
I agree people makeing 5-10 million don't need a subsidy. Those folks also get the standard deduction for each minor child on their tax forms. Should we change that? My real estate taxes go to pay for the public schools their kids attend. Do we make them pay. I remember when oil prices were high, some of the local farmers were asking for the government to put price controls on the price of fuel. Like I told them it is great when it happens to the other guy, what if corn or cattle prices go up next year and the gov puts price controls on that?
I personally think that farm payments should be capped at $20,000 Flat no exceptions, and yes the big mega farmer should be able to get his 20,000 too. My opinion.

Patt, you have compiled a good bit of information and seem to truly want some answers that make sense. I’ll try to explain some of it.
If the USDA didn’t give $1.3 million to some big farm, those 660 dairies would get about $2,000. I doubt that would make or break any of them. So it might make you feel better that the “big guy” didn’t get the $1.3 million, but it isn’t going to save any small farm.

If the USDA rules put a cap on the amount of subsidy a farm can receive and my farm is huge, couldn’t I simply divide it into several farms and legally apply for the subsidy? People like it when some small farmer sells shares of his milk cow to get around the regulations on selling raw milk, yet you hate the big business farmer for creating a way around the government regulations? Fair is fair.

I’ve heard time and time again from folks on HT, that they threw their USDA questionnaire away. Then the same folks get mad because the USDA isn’t serving them. As far as the USDA knows those farms don’t exist. Not USDA’s fault. So don’t complain when the well managed large farms find every way available to turn a profit, while we operate in the red against the “economy of scale”. It isn’t their fault, they aren’t the bad guys.

If we have children in this country going to bed hungry, it is because Baby’s Momma is buying crack with the welfare checks. We are awash in programs to help the poor, especially the children, to the point it is easier to collect the welfare than it is to struggle with a low wage job and the problems with day care.
If our government helps farmers sell watermelons below the cost of production, that helps the US consumer. If our government helps farmers sell rice to other countries at prices below the cost of production, we reduce the imbalance of trade.

It isn’t just rice that is being exported. Corn and wheat leave this country by the millions of bushels each year. Without USDA’s help, those markets would close, prices would drop, farms would be bankrupt.

We can’t just assume that corporate farms are rolling in dough. They have huge investments and if they are to continue to be in farming, they have to generate interest in this investment for those that have invested. If they can’t turn a profit, all business would stop being businesses and the investors would stick their money in passbook savings accounts.

The loss of 660 dairy farms is a reflection of that loss of profitability. The price paid for milk went below what it costs to produce it. If I were able to create a mega-farm and milk 10,000 cows and do it at a profit, am I bad? If I earn a $100,000 for my investors, (who’s money I depend on to stay a farm) should I be cut off from the USDA subsidies, even when I meet all the requirements? If you want money to go to small farms that are inherently less efficient and not to the productive farms, what is the message you are sending? Sounds like class envy at best, socialism at its worst.

You note that 77% of AK farms get no government help. You might be surprised at the size of most of those “farms” I think I read one time that in the state of Texas, huge range lands, that the average cattle herd was 30 cows. So, among all those farms, there are a lot of folks like us with just a few animals. So if you cut out all those homesteading/hobby farms/ and those done part time, you cut out most of the farms.

If you understand farming, you know that $5-10 million GROSS sales just means that you’ll be back buying tractors, combines, seed, fuel, fertilizer next year. Tell me how much PROFIT is in there and those on their soap box yelping about mega farms generally shut up.

I knew a gal that was dating a farmer. He managed 4,000 acres. Around Valentines’ Day, she got a glance at his check book. He had between a quarter and a half million in there. She thought he was rich. But after he bought supplies, paid the rent and taxes on the land, fueled up the equipment and covered repairs, he was near broke by harvest time. That’s how it goes.

I’ve had people tell me how I’m getting tax money back because of a farming loophole. They don’t realize that if I put $50,000 into my farm and get back $40,000 that I save $300 because I don’t have to pay income taxes on the $10,000 that I lost. Frankly, I’d rather pay the $300 and keep the $10,000. Everyone is worried that someone is getting something they are not.


Around here, the export crop is mostly hay. When we have a bad year, the USDA offers up some money to help the farmers get through the bad year. But, there are strings attached. You have to supply records each year so they know what your average is so they can pay you the difference. They require you to buy crop insurance if any is available. Most smaller farmers don’t bother. The big farms have a business plan and with their larger debt and overall investment, they protect that investment with insurance and signing up for every subsidy they can.

I know of a family farm that went to three brothers when mom and dad died. To get three families fed, they got bigger. When they got old, the farm went to their children. It became simpler to incorporate and form three partners. They are a family farm, they are a mega- farm. They operate a dairy, a beef herd, a feeder calf operation and a draft horse breeding operation. They were listed among the top 20 farms receiving federal money. Some is a program to hold land as meadows, reducing erosion, some is from other conservation practices.

I’ve gotten a bit of money when the county had crop failures. I’ve gotten money by cutting my woodlot in a more eco-friendly way. I’ve gotten money to pay part of the cost to fence my cows out of the stream.

How many of those that cry about some hot shot getting all the money have really looked into getting some of it themselves? Lots easier to shake your fist at the guy in the $300,000 combine. News flash: it isn’t his, it is the bank’s.

Those making $5 to 10 million on a $50 to 100 million investment need a subsidy.

I hate to thread jack, but everyone here is so knowledgeable and this is the first that I have ever heard anyone talk about farm subs. Can someone explain subsistence agg and why urban areas would be upset? or point me at a good site?

Subsistence farming provides food for that family. Urban areas depend on farmers for food. Subsistence farmers do not supply that need. Millions would starve.
Now back on topic,

Ok so does anybody have a website with acceptable statistics? Because we really need to start there if mine are not acceptable. :)

Just a couple of things: first you might be amazed by the fact that there are kids going to bed hungry who have decent upstanding parents who are just hard on their luck. No crack required. You need to actually meet some poor people because it is real easy to say if you are poor and hungry you must be a bad person but that is far from true. Volunteer at your local foodbank, it will be an eye opener.

Anyone who double or triple dips on farm subsidies or claims one when they aren't really farmers or abuses the system is wrong. There is a vast difference between just trying to make a reasonable living selling a product to consumers who want it in the case of raw milk and bilking the government system and stealing money from taxpayers.

Let me ask you a question do you know that the closure of the vast majority of family farms correlates to the changes made in the Farm bill in the last 30 years or so? If you don't think the one caused the other then why do you think it happened?

As I learned in my government funded education, all government programs are successful and critical to our survival.

How are farm subsidies successful?
They provide jobs for politicians who use them to buy votes.
Jobs for legislators and staff who write the rules.
Jobs for bureaucrats and agents to decide who gets what and dole out the loot.
Jobs for tax collectors to take money from citizens to pay for the subsidies.
Jobs for accountants who help people figure out their taxes.
Jobs for police to arrest those who refuse to pay their taxes.
Jobs for gun and ammunition manufacturers to arm the police so they can arrest those who refuse to pay taxes.
Jobs for jail workers to house those who refuse to pay their taxes.
Jobs for lawyers and judges for legal proceedings of those who don’t pay taxes.
Jobs for healthcare workers to treat obesity related diseases from excessive junk food production.

The following article must be wrong, stating that New Zealand did away with farm subsidies and farming improved and farms were not lost.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3411

Reply
 

There are a few folks around from NZ who know the story better, but as I recall, NZ didn't just do away with farm subsidies, they ended all kinds of subsidies in all kinds of sectors... health, education, local government, etc. etc. etc. Farms survived in large part because they weren't the only ones in society taking the hit. A friend of mine spends part of the year in NZ every year, he recalls the local school having to fire the caretakers and parents had to take over cleaning the school. They didn't have enough money to keep teachers for every subject at the old salaries so they asked HIM to teach science part time because he was the most qualified person they could find, although they ended up finding someone who would accept a lower salary and lowering the salaries of the other teachers.
Very misleading to be used by groups who want to use it to promote ending ONLY ag subsidies and leaving everyone else alone.

Let’s think about this $20,000 cap plan. If the cost to produce corn is $3.00 a bushel and the government cuts off trade with Mexico, pushing the value of a bushel of corn below $2.50. Just to break even (that means the farmer’s wife’s up town job buys the groceries and pays the utilities, again this year), the farmer needs the 50 cents per bushel so he can pay off the loan he took to buy seed and fertilizer.
Let’s say he’s farming 400 acres and harvests 100 bushels per acre. He’ll need an extra 50 cents for every one of those 40,000 bushels. You seem fine that he can get $20,000.
But wait. The guy down the road farms 1200 acres with his two brothers. They’ll need $60,000 because their three times as big and lost three times the money. But you put a $20,000 limit. That’s not fair. So do we allow them to split up the farm and each brother get $20,000 ? Is that fair enough for you?
On the other side of the county, I’m farming 12,000 acres. If you limit me to $20,000, I’ll go broke. But when I find out you would allow the three brothers $60,000, I’m splitting my farm into 30 farms and collecting the same amount per bushel as the guy with 400 acres.
Flat. No exceptions? Hardly. It just wouldn’t work the way you might imagine unless your plan is to set agriculture on its ear.

Patt says:” Just a couple of things: first you might be amazed by the fact that there are kids going to bed hungry who have decent upstanding parents who are just hard on their luck. No crack required. You need to actually meet some poor people because it is real easy to say if you are poor and hungry you must be a bad person but that is far from true. Volunteer at your local foodbank, it will be an eye opener.”

I’ve helped at a local foodbank. I’ve seen the folks in their new $40,000 SUV pull up and get their food. Very common.
I have friends that are doing just fine without working. Not a worry. Plenty of food, house payments being made and the car is quickly repaired every time the jerk goes four-wheeling with it. If they are “down on their luck” they simply sign up. I know people that feed their USDA surplus canned beef to their dogs, because they have so much. Do you think Obama would have been elected if his constituents were hungry?
The eye opener is the people that are better cared for when they do not work than those struggling working poor. Hungry children? I don’t think so.

Patt wrote:” Let me ask you a question do you know that the closure of the vast majority of family farms correlates to the changes made in the Farm bill in the last 30 years or so? If you don't think the one caused the other then why do you think it happened?”

Well, let’s look at history. Farms have been expanding for over 150 years. “Get big or get out” isn’t a catch phrase from this century. Advances in machinery have increased production, as have advances in plant science.

Did the farm bill cause the demise of the Mom and Pop grocery stores? Did the local downtown hardware store close due to subsidy payments to farmers? Did Hudson, Rambler and Studebaker stop production because of the Conservation Reserve program or the wool subsidy? Of course not. Businesses grow or die. The smaller firms closed and the more efficient ones got bigger. Same for farming.

The USDA farm subsidy programs that I’m aware of were set up to encourage small farms. I’m no expert, don’t claim to be, on all the farm programs available.

A number of years ago, I had to buy crop insurance in order to get paid in the event of a crop failure. It seems the insurance cost $40 and would insure any number of acres. That amount would insure my 10 acres of oats or 10,000 acres of Kansas wheat field. That didn’t make sense. I don’t know if it is that way now or not.

But if we are going to put a limit on the total of subsidies, let’s limit the size of the tractor. Limit the size of the plow. Limit the size of the grain bins.

Umm if the farmers have to take out a loan every year to buy seeds and fertilizers then there is a real problem there. No wonder they need subsidies! My little place would sink if I was taking out loans to farm. Funny you can crack on people who over shot their means buying an SUV but the farmers who couldn't resist the wildly expensive new equipment deserve a subsidy?

I happen to live in a very poor rural county and the kids here who are needy don't have parents driving new cars, they are driving clunkers that are falling apart. They are buying clothes at the thrift store and making ends meet however they can. Their are plenty of people in America who are genuinely poor especially today with all the job losses.

HAYPOINT Yep catastrophic crop insurance, for huge crop failures. I think $100 /crop whether there is 1 acre or 1000. If you collect a pay;ment you are required to carry insurance on every crop you grow for the next 5 years(i think). I do not have it as I have 200 acres of farm ground and may grow 8 different crops.

capping subisidies is not fair? I am not sure that is correct, having income taxes rates go from 0 to 39% is that fair? Giving some one an $8000 tax break to buy a new home but not everyone the same tax break fair? Paying to insulate someones house but not yours because you paid to insulate it yourself is that fair? Hell life isn't fair never has been. Is it fair you were born in the land of opportunity and some other dude was born in the slums of Calcutta?
A lot of the backlash to ag subsidies is because of some of the outlandish payments individuals receive. If you think $20000 is too small ok raise it, but there is a point where it is ridiculous. In most ag communities $50,000 would be a pretty good living, make it that. Or we could just disagree.

Patt, The majority of farmers borrow money for production costs for the year ie: seed, fertilizer, fuel, crop insurance, herbicides, rent. Where I am it may take$400/ acre for such expenses. A very small farm of 500 acres of row crop would be $200,000. not many farmers have that hidden in the sock drawer.

I'm not sure what statistics you are looking for - got Farm program spends a whole lot of money every year, which _includes_ the food stamp progam, as well as other social assistance programs. About 18-22% of the Farm Bill money goes to farmers - barely more than administering the program costs. Farmers get less that welfare families from the Farm Program. And you want to complain about the farmers....

When the ecconomy hiccups it's tough on people. But there are _many_ programs available, public and private, to offer a leg up to honest folk who need real help. Wow, typed a long story here, but not important. The problem is sifting the chaff from the wheat. Lot of folk won't look for a new job until 2 weeks before the unemployment checks run out. Is that fair?

The farm program is not a welfare program - it is a farm program. It offers the same deal to everyone. I really don't understand how that is a problem. Sure, cheaters should be taken care of! But if my neighbor has a farm 10x bigger than me, he probably should get 10 times as much money from the program? That is only logical. Why does that bother you?

What you are asking for is like saying every mom that comes to the welfare line or the foodbank should get the exact same amount. Doesn't matter how many kids they have or how many people are back home, they all should be limited to 2 meals of food per week..... That isn't right if one is supporting herself and one kid, while the other has her 3 kids and her sister with 4 kids all back at the house.....

Really the comparison of welfare & farm subsides makes no sense tho. Welfare is for people who need a handout.

Farm program is for keeping a cheap food supply. It really doesn't have much for _farmers_, it is all about cheap food, lots of it, and no shortages. It's not any type of welfare for farmers. It's a business deal between the govt & farmers.

Presidents Nixon and Carter did the most damage to farmers. Their actions opened up the rainforests of Brazil, and took down the USA as a reliable supplier of food. We became the nation of last resort to buy food from; and agriculture in this country needed to get very efficient, very very low on labort costs, and extremely productive to fit into the new modern world.

Fella across the buffet table this evening was talking, he said back in his day he sold 3 cases of eggs and used the money to buy a new 20 gauge shotgun. His grandkids are passing the gun around now, was a good product.

What do you think 3 cases of eggs would buy today?

We used to pay 60% of our paychecks for food. Today it's closer to 10%.

Why do you think farm income goes down, and farms need to get bigger to support the same amount of people? Because we all pay less for food than we used to.

--->Paul

There are 3 basic arms to the farm subsidies we get in the USA.

1. Direct payment. This is a payment per acre. Basically it's the bribe the govt pays so you sign up for the 5 year program. It's based on what crops you grew back in the md-late 1980s. Likely gonna be $6-10 an acre you get, depends on the details of what you grew & if you properly signed up back in the 1980s. This money really does not go to the farmer: It becomes a part of the land cost - either in land price, poperty taxes, or land rent. If this payment were taken away, it just would drop land costs by that amount. Schools that depend on property taxes would be hurt as much as widows who rent out their husband's land. Farmers actually would adjust quickly and not miss it too much.

2. LDP payment. If crop prices fall very very low at one point of the year, you get to collect the difference between what the govt thinks the price should be, and what it is. If you collect any LDP money, you likely are having a very bad year, as the prices need to be very low before it kicks in. But, it very complicated to guess what day to lock in the LDP price, as you can only do it once, and only on grain you have harvested but not sold. This makes it more of a scratch game winner that a helpful govt program - you need to guess right to collect big. But again - if you are collecting, well then prices are terrible and you might get a big govt check, but you are still losing money farming at such terrible prices. As well, if you had a bad year with no crops, you get little from this program. It only pays on cushels you raise.

3. Counter Cyclical Program. This program looks at the weighted average price of grains over the whole year, and gives you a payment the following year if the price of that grain was terribly low for the whole year. Again as with the LDP payments, if you collect on this it means grain prices were so terrible you are losing money at farming. Typically you get this payment a full year after the bad year; so it's not a very timely payment for a bad year. But in my mind, this is the one part of the farm program that makes sense. It actually is a safety net for terrible poor year long farm prices. I'd prefer if the other 2 parts above were scrapped, and this part of it was improved a tad but basically kept as the only farm program. It makes some sense as a safety net.

4. Environmental land programs. CRP, and couple other programs where the govt pays land rent for poorer land to return it to native prairie (in my area, or whatever would be native in your area). This is a business deal where the govt wants more native habitat, and rents the land from farmers and other land owners. The land owners need to spend a major portion of their payments to plant & maintain the land to the plants the govt requires. Many times bonuses are offered for planting trees, or restoring a wetland, etc. This really is not a farm program, it is a wildlife program, but gets lumped into the farm program when the discussion comes up.

5. Environmental programs: Equip, and others, offer to pay farmers a couple bucks to maybe 10 bucks an acre to do various things to be more eco-friendly. Cut down on erosion, chemical issues, fuel use, etc. The govt has gotten on this eco-kick for all walks of life, you can get your twisty light bulbs for free if you apply to your various govt agencies; airports and malls and homeowners can get cheaper insulation, or tax breaks on doing stuff; likewise the govt offers these programs to farmers. Again, not really a farm subsidy program, but it gets lumped in when we talk about farm subsidies.

6. Insurance subsidies. The past few years Americans have gotten tired - complain to their congress people - when a major natural disaster happens and wipes out farmers in a large area. A big drought, or a big flood, or a multi-county hailstorm.... Used to be the govt would help out with disaster payments in those cases. But, now they offer to help pay for insurance policies on your crops, and will not pay the disaster aid any more. The disaster aid was an unknown amount; the govt can plan more for the insurance subsides. The govt likes it better this way - they are also helping insurance comanies with this plan - it's a double-dip for the govt.... The govt _will_ do something, as these sorts of big natural disasters will wipe out farmers through no fault of their own, and that wipes out the businesses on mainstreet, and can take down the ecconomy of an entire area. So, you'll get some sort of deal here - it's kinda like the soup kitchen, neither the disaster payments nor the insurance subsidy will make anyone rich, but it will offer a bit of cash to keep going, keep spending in town.

7. Loan programs. CCC, Grain Handling, and Environmental upgrade loans - the govt will help out with low interest loans - sometimes no-interest - as they do with all walks of life. The money needs to be paid back, so while there are big amounts being paid out, it is also returned, it wasn't something one could keep. The CCC loan is a complicated deal where the govt offers a loan on grain you have stored; you can't mess with the grain until you pay the loan back or you can keep the money & turn over the grain tot he govt. Again, it can be huge sums of money, but it is a 9 month loan and you will pay it back with dollars or grain, so the govt isn't out anything big.

That's kinda it.

The first 3 and number 6 are what farmers think of when they think of the Farm Program.

4 & 5 are a business deal the govt wishes to do - has nothing to do with the 'farm Program' or govt subsidies to farmers. Often #4 gives non-farmers a big sum of money.... What you don't see is that it's a rental deal, the govt gets control of the land for 10 years, and rewquires the land owner to spend a lot to comply with the rental agreement. Those of you not so familiar with ag see this as 'free money' to 'wealthy land owners' and well, so you hate all farmers.... But, it's not really much to do with farming.....

I'd like to do away with #1 and #2.

I don't think much of #6, it does more for insurance companies than it does for farmers - but guess it's cheaper for the govt than the old way.

#5 is a tough one - the govt does this sort of thing for everyone else, from home owners to major airlines. So it's only fair they do it for farmers as well. Tho I wish the govt would do less of it all around!

#4 too is a tough one. It's a good idea, but costly. The govt is buying wildlife habitat from provate individuals. Enough citizens told Congress that's how they want it, so that's how it is. Some people think it's a waste of money, and I can understand those feelings. But, what's right or wrong? It really has nothing to do with farmers or farm subsides, it's just a land rental deal. The govt wishes to rent land from people.

Portions of these programs, especially 1, 2, and 3, have a cap where an individual farm operation can't get more than so and so many dollars. Is it $200,000 these days? I forget, I'm _way_ below worrying about the limit! :) Anyhow, the problem becomes as haypoint mentions, what happens when a family farms together, and had 2 uncles, 3 nephews, a neice, and 2 grand-nephews and a few spouces helping at busy times all farming together as a group? How do you apply any limit to such an operation? What you call 'double dipping' is actually breaking such an operation down to it's basic people vs acres. One way or another if you limit the payments per _farmer_, then the farms will be split into the best setup to be qualified for the payments. That is only fair.

Why should this farm run by 8 people plus help from other family members have the same limits as a farm run by one person who's spouce is making $100,000 at a real job in town? If you want to apply limits, then _how_ do you apply those limits?


So, what programs do have problems with? Which ones do you like, which ones do you not like? What improvements would you make?

You don't seem opposed to farm subsidies totally, you seem opposed to farms that are too big for your goals? What do you think the goal fo farm subsides is, and what do you think the goal of farm subsides should actually be?

Getting late & it's dark with my wife sleeping, so sorry for the typos....

--->Paul

LDP= Loan Deficiency Payment. Let’s say corn is normally $3.50 a bushel. The Government will loan a farmer $3.00 a bushel, based on what his expected yields are. All this has to be paid back at harvest. But when the price drops unexpectedly to $2.50 a bushel, the farmer isn’t going to be able to cover his loan. So, the government covers the difference, the deficiency. It allows the farmer to pay off the loan he took to get the crop into the ground.
I’m not sure of the details, but in Canada, there are quotas issued and prices set by the government. As an example, you might be in the egg business and the government supports the egg price for everything you produce up to 100,000 eggs a year. No government outlay of funds/subsidies.
In this country, there isn’t a limit on how many eggs you can sell. But the price is below the cost of production. But since there is a subsidy on eggs, you break even. You can buy your chicken feed for less than it takes to grow it, because the corn grower got a LDP, just to stay in business.
So Canadians pay more for food because of price protection/control. We pay less for food and the farmer gets supported by a subsidy that comes out of the pockets of those folks buying their cheap food. If you bristle at the thought that your tax dollars are helping farms stay in business, you really wouldn’t like the government telling everyone how much they must pay for eggs and milk.

OK.. I do and don't understand this..So the goverment gives you money to continue farming so we have a dependable food supply for Americans. Huh..OK..get that..But after looking at the list of "farmers" in this area many are not farming full time to say the least. One for instance..is only haying his fields a few times a year and he is entitled to $20,000 from Uncle Sam. Some are dairy farms but in such disrepair that they should be condemned but are receiving "alot' of money. I guess I am on the homestead too much because I thought if you had a business..of any kind..you should run that business on what you are making in money by selling your product. So...the TV Beekman Boys..I know..a reality show on Planet Green..They might be getting money from Uncle Sam too. I just don't get it...and I'm paying taxes to just "stay alive"..?? I guess I am stupid..

Think of the farm program as one of the better examples of socialism in American. Starting with 4-H for the farm kids(a USDA program), Extension, beginning farm loans, crop storage loans...........................and now payments to retiring farmers to help disadvantaged beginning farmers buy land. Is it 'right'. My take is the policies are set in favor of cheap food at the retail level and big bucks for the big processers (Cargil, ADM, etc).
The government tried to get out of the farm program business with the Freedom to Farm transition to free market and the farmers cried with the first down turn.
Regarding EWG data, the data is correct for our farm and others I know. Most of the negative comments about EWG data are coming from those who do not want the data available to the public.

We are now on the 3rd or 4th generation of farmers who have only known the subsidy system, it would be tough to change.

Having said the above, the mid-size conventional production farmers who produce a comidity crop are having a challenging time and will continue to be caught between not big enough comidity producers or smaller non-comidity value added crops farmers.

Rambler gave a very good overall discription in post 25 of the farm program.

The govt of the USA has decided it could use food as a weapon/ international policy. Along with other presidents, both Nixon & Carter used food as a serious weapon by witholding grain sales to other countries. This made the world take notice to not depend on our grains for their food.

This greatly, greatly messed up USA farmer's markets. It cost farmers _much_ income.

Farming is about buying expensive seed, fertilizer, fuel, machinery, land costs in spring, and plan to harvest a crop 6 months later,w hich you can plan to sell over the course of the next year for whatever best price you can get.

In 2008 early on fertilizer was $300 a ton; by the end of 2009 it was $1200 a ton. Diesel fuel has gone from $1.90 to almost $4 back to $2.30.

The price for corn has gone from $2.30 to $6.10 back to $2.90.

Remember, we farmers plan to spend $400 - 600 an acre, with the hope to make $10 - 100 per acre profit.

But - try to plan that with the huge swings in costs and grain prices of the last few years?

Then add in a government that can, on a whim, embargo grain sales or add tarriffs - last year the govt added a 30% tarriff to tires imported from China. In return, China stopped imports of meats & turned away some grain imports already on ships. Those actions dropped grain prices by 10-15 cents a bushel.

To mention nothing of the weather. Homesteaders or gardeners should be well aware of the effects of weather.

How would you deal with all this? Farmers deal with big dollar numbers, but get to keep very little of it. We have a great deal of risk. A manufaturing plant has much more control of their markets, their indoor conditions, they can lay people off if they lose orders.

Farmers have little choice but to spend the big bucks in spring, and don't know until fall if they get a crop or not.

We _could_ handle this risk by charging a lot more for our grains. But then food is going to cost you a lot more!

The USA has decided they want to supply cheap food to all, and so that is what the government is going to do.

The govt manipulates prices a bit, and watches production, and encourages the USA farmer to overproduce feed/ food. This makes for cheap foods and meats.

The govt needs to add money to the ag business to create this cheap food.

We have a 21 day 'extra' supply of corn, and only 18 or so days of 'extra' soybeans in the USA. If we had a big disaster, or if the valcanic eruptions reduced our yields 10% across the board, the govt would have to step in and limit exports to other countries - this would mess up grain prices, and create havoic for farmers.

It is common for a farmer to carry long-term debt and very short term debt. Paying on the bigger machinery, and paying on a line of credit to afford the seed, fuel, and fertilizer.

Manipulating exports and crops planted could devistate a farmer, which will really crash a local town ecconomy.

Te government has decided this is the gameplan: Create cheap food in the USA, and pay a bare minumum of subsidies to continue the oversupply of food to keep the USA stable.

If you don't want to play that game, you are swimming upstream by yourself.

Can't blame farmers for playing the game the government gives them.

If you get rid of all govt subsidies, well we are going to have much bigger roller coaster ride of expensive food, food shortages, etc. I'd be fine with that as a farmer, but it would be hard on people.

---Paul

While there are indeed sub-programs (usually private--CRP-MAP via Pheasants Forever, as an example) that take advantage of CRP acres. CRP itself does not open the land up to public use. In my area, most CRP acres remain private. They are indeed supposed to plant back to native, but that might or might not actually happen.

It's also a place for people to legally milk the system. In my area, it's popular for both spouses to sign up individually. Double dip. Or, a grown/half-grown child who is still living/working at home.

And then there are people like this:
http://www.cfra.org/blog/2007/09/10/...wilder-youtube who my DH ran a ranch for, for nearly 10 years.
Welfare mamas got nothin' on Maurice Wilder! ;)
The man flies in on his personal jet (gold-plated faucets in the plane's bathroom), is on his third trophy-wife and wouldn't know the south end of a northbound steer if he saw it. Nor, for that matter, does he know anything about growing corn. But he's one of the largest subsidy recipients in the country.

ErinP, it's because the farm program is set up to provide cheap, ample food, that these people qualify by the rules to take part in the farm programs.

The farm program is not designed to favor one farmer over another. It is designed to keep food prices very low, and supplies very abundant.

Those folks are not double dipping in an illegal way. They are all farming, and the program allows them to structure their farm so that all may qualify.

For the end goal of very cheap food in the USA.

If we don't want cheap food and don't mind shortages from time to time, then we can go to a totally different, socialistic, favoritism sort of program.

What is the goal you want from the ag policies of the USA?

--->Paul

Caps and controls on loop-holes.
Double-dipping, for example. It might be legal, but it's not ethical. There's a reason so many people DON'T afterall.
Lifetime limits.
People like Wilder (a real-estate developer, btw) should not be able to make MILLIONS in subsidy payments every year.

Etc.
To me, this should be just common sense to everyone. :shrug:

It is the way the system works. If available to one, it has to be available to all who qualify.

But if he is investing $100's of millions in farming and land, then shouldn't he get his fair share of the subsidies - just like any other land owner? The point of the subsidies is to create ample & cheap food. It is _not_ to help any farmer in any realistic way. It is not to protect smaller farmers over bigger farmers.

The fella with 100 acres gets his slice of the pie; the fella with 60,000 acres also gets his slice of the pie. The slices will reflect the amount they own to begin with.

That seems common sense to me.

You want something we don't have right now - a setup that does not protect cheap & amp food. You want a setup that protects small & innefficent farmers to continue their small & innefficent ways?

I'm one of the smallest farmers in my county trying to live off of the farm income as my only income - wife has a real job for benefits & monthly income. So I have no interest in protecting millionares or defending huge payements.

The thing is, the govt payments are based on providing the USA an ample supply of cheap food. As such, it is just logical that larger operations will be running more land, and will collect more subsidies.

As I see it?

--->Paul

So how do countries with no subsidies (New Zealand was mentioned) have an affordable food supply?

More importantly, I didn't say anything about getting rid of subsides.
I said we need to close loopholes and put caps on payments.

I appreciate your thoughts on this, and I didn't mean to put any words in your mouth. ;) It seems you would like a different ag subsidy, one that supports small operations, not the current deal we have? Is that the direction you would choose to go?

NZ grazes a whole lot of sheep on pasture lands that wouldn't grow much else.

They grow some wheat.

It's a different setup of agriculture. They depend on a lot of imports of other foods. As in the USA, grazing meat doesn't depend much on subsidies for a level feed supply. It's the grain crops that take a year to produce that carry the high risk.

As mentioned, they got rid of many subsidies to all industries in their country - I'd be all for that!!!! Man, bring it on!!!! I'm with you on that.

What would bother me is folks on here seem to only want to stop subsidies for agriculture in the USA. They still want minumum wage laws, still want subsidies to the oil & mining and manufaturing industries. Seems odd that agriculture is singled out.

--->Paul

On an organic farm with an integrated system you would have none of those costs. Farmers have been suckered today into being perpetually the slaves of various big Ag companies.
http://agmarketing.extension.psu.edu...MoreProfit.pdf

You said my website with statistics was bad because they were inflated so I need one with the actual uninflated ones. :)

How many cartons are in a case of eggs? I sell mine for $3.50 to $4.00 a dozen.

Thanks for taking the time to type all that out. :) I am not sure I understand all of it but it gives us a good starting point.

Since the only page I have with numbers right now is the EWG one do me a favor and take a look at this link and tell me which of your numbers/programs this falls under:
http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php...mber=009260842

According to this the biggest recipient of farm subsidies in AR got $1,308,070 strictly for Commodity Subsidies, none for conservation or disaster.