Corn. 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?