Farm subsidies have deep political roots
December 3rd, 2007 – 3:38 AM by Dennis J. McGrathCorn. Cotton. Sugar. Rice.
Name a crop and, it seems, there’s a government subsidy or protective tariff for it.
The much-denounced system of ag supports is about to be renewed in Congress, and it’s a pretty safe bet that any changes to the heart of the program will be minimal.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar |
Today, our Washington correspondents, Kevin Diaz and Nina Petersen-Perlman, write about the latest effort to trim it back. You can read their story here. Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D), is trying to limit government payments to farmers with more than $750,000 in adjusted gross income, arguing that the program currently provides subsidies to people who don’t need them.
“Right now nearly 600 residents of New York City, 559 residents of Washington, DC, and even 21 residents of Beverly Hills 90210 have received federal farm checks in the past three years,” she said last month in a Senate speech. Here’s her full statement.
The Environmental Working Group has been leading the way in calling attention to all the urban “suits” receiving farm subsidies — from athletes to millionaire corporate CEOs. The EWG has done great work making the data accessibile.
For example, I found that 250 people in my decidedly suburban Minnetonka zip code have received farm subsidies totalling more than $3 million from 1995-2005. You can search the database here. And you can find the EWG home page here.
Here’s the Heritage Foundation’s analysis of what’s wrong with the Senate farm bill, and how to improve it.
Sen. Norm Coleman |
Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., takes up the defense of the subsidy system, saying the actions of foreign governments makes U.S. subsidies necessary.
“Why do our farm families need a safety net at all? The answer, in part, lies with a world market that is today neither free nor fair. For example, when the world looks at America, it sees U.S. tariffs averaging about 12%. Meanwhile, when American farm families looks at the world, they see an average tariff of about 62% — or 5 times as much.” The rest of Coleman’s statement on agriculture issues can be found here.
And here’s an argument by Diggers Realm that the subsidies are valuable as a homeland security effort.
The dispute over farm subsidies is, of course, not limited to the domestic political arena. It’s a global battle. A few years back, the British Guardian newspaper gave birth to an organization called kickAAS — Kick All Agricultural Subsidies. Here’s the kickAAS site.
The U.S. farm lobby has gotten smaller over the years, as there are fewer but larger farm operations. But the lobby has retained its clout, at least in part because agriculture — whether grain, livestock, cotton, vegetable, fruit or dairy production — is an important industry in virtually every state. It’s no surprise, for example, that the major presidential candidates are not campaigning to end farm subsidies — not with the Iowa caucuses coming up.
What do you think? Is the income limit on full-time farmers that Klobuchar is suggesting a reasonable one? Or could it, as Coleman argues, fracture the coalition of farm interests trying to get the farm bill passed? Do you prefer his plan to direct the reform at “part-time” farmers?
8 Responses to "Farm subsidies have deep political roots"
During the House debate, Congressman Ron Kind (Republican - Wisconsin) tried to address the subsidy issue. Kind’s proposal would have overhauled the farm bill by ending payments to farmers earning more than $250,000 a year (which was in line with what President Bush proposed), limiting payments farmers can receive under guaranteed loan programs, expanding conservation programs and replacing many subsidies with crop insurance and other protection that pays only if farmers lose money.
Roll Call Vote 747 was voted down by the Republicans 151 – 44 with Minnesotans Bachmann and Kline supporting continuing the subsidies.
Therefore, to an overwhelming majority of Republicans, subsidies are good government. So, while Republicans Love Subsidies, there are other parts of the bill that they don’t like – taxes and welfare.
Collin Peterson said at FarmFest “We are spending less than 12 percent on farmers. Over 68 percent of the farm bill is for nutrition, for food stamps and the other feeding programs.” Further, the bill would impose taxes on some foreign and multinational corporations operating in the United States that do not now pay taxes on some earnings as a result of international treaties.
There we have the crux of the Farm Bill problem. Republicans Hate Taxes ( I suspect as much as they Love Subsidies) … even closing loopholes to help to pay for the subsidies. Futher, they Hate Welfare (unless its Corporate Welfare which is synomosis with Subsidies.)
There is reason why Congress’s approval is so low … all they want to do is reward potential contributors and not be fiscally responsible in ensuring that our citizen’s receive the essential needs of substance.
Farm subsidies should be phased out. For one thing, the gov’t can’t react quickly enough to market changes, so we subsidize something like corn that - with the renewed interest in ethanol - is a profitable crop without subsidies. Meanwhile a crop like cotton, that perhaps can be produced inexpensively elsewhere, is subsidized here for little more than tradition. If a farmer can’t make money on cotton without a subsidy, perhaps they should plant a different crop. That’s how we treat businesses, why don’t we treat farms the same way?
The complexities of this subject are as vast as anyone would hopefully intuitively understand. Brevity does disservice and frankly causes some of the problems in achieving a constructive debate. The result of several years research and analysis is at:
http://www.iwla.org/publications/agriculture/Farm_Bill_2007_WEB.pdf
But it is not brief, although a summary is found here:
http://www.iwla.org/publications/agriculture/Farm_Bill_Exec_Summary.pdf
With additional background and links here:
http://www.iwla.org//index.php?id=21
To attempt the briefest overview: Agriculture really is different than all other industries, federal involvement is necessary and can be beneficial, but current U.S. farm policy is faulty and skews the marketplace.
And the briefest description of the best correction of policy? Base federal support payments on how well soil, water and wildlife resources are protected and enhanced to ensure continued productivity and public benefit—-rather than on how much of a select commodity is produced.
And, absoultely, cap the maximum payment allowed.
I should clarify.
If a farmer grows organic crops or raises organic poultry, they should continue to receive subsidies. I recommend reading Warren Buffets philosophy on ethanol. I think it’s a really good idea to use a commodity like corn for fuel even though it’s much more expensive to refine, will drive up prices of many other goods, and would be physically impossible to grow enough corn to make a noticable difference. The important thing is we spite ourselves to feel good about our misguided thoughts.
Hey, lookit that, faux bsimon is posting again (at 12:16).
Norm again ducks the bill’s direct criticism and offers a fuzzy duck answer to a question nobody asked.
If wealthy absentee owners are receiving farm subsidies, then those subsidies need to be redirected towards farmers, not farm companies.
MN Central - I don’t think Republicans believe subsidies are good gov’t, but rather good campaign fundraising.
My husband Don and I produce turkeys and Hydroponic tomatoes in Detroit Lakes Mn and I also produce a value-added product “Pam’s Salsa” using our tomatoes.
I have been offended by recent comments concerning the farm bill and farm subsidizies.
One editorialist likened the money given to farmers as “Money falling from the Sky”. Well it did’t fall not on this farm. The second comment made stated that because of the greater risk made by large farms they need subsidies. As far as I am concerned if you are “betting the farm” it doesn’t matter if it is big or small.
Our farm is what you would call self subsidized. When we have a disaster we have sold farmland. To date since 2001 we have sold over $500,000 of land.
I would like to see the farm bill assist farmers producing local pesticide-free or organic products. Help us get our products into stores soi consumers can buy locally and stop illegal dumping of produce by neighboring countries.
Thank You Pamela Skarie
An old adage, ‘Free enterprise for the poor and welfare for the rich’ seems to fit the farm situation quite well. The program should be based on need, and support for practices enhancing the long term sustainability of our agricultural resources. Support should be capped. Scams would decrease if the rewards were not so great.