Since 2005, the federal government has paid out nearly $100 billion in farm subsidies - much of it for people NOT to grow crops. What do you think of this system?
Hunter Farms Inc., located in the Jefferson area, received between three and four million dollars in government subsidies over the last ten years. Several other area farms were around a million or more dollars in aid for the same period. This seems excessive.
If you click on this link, it will show you the top 20 farm subsidy recipients in Greene County from 1995 to 2006, a period of 12 years. The Top Recipients list is a bit deceiving, though. If there has been a change in the farm (corporation) name during this time period, you then have to search for two or more names (same owner(s)) then add them together.
For instance, Van Horn Farms is listed under two different names, but has the same owners (check ownership interest). It was Van Horn Inc from 1995 to 2002/3. Total subsidies were $613,626. From 2003 to 2006, it was called Vanhorn Partnership. Total subsidies for those years were $449,336. Combined, in 12 years, Van Horn Farms accepted $1,062,962 in Federal farm subsidies. This number would put Van Horn in 4th place, pushing Kathyrn Shriver down to 5th place. If you play the same "add them up" game with Kathryn, she'd move back up to 4th.
The Farm Subsidy Database isn't perfect, but with a little curiosity, you can find out more than you probably want to know.
If you are using this link to search by county, make sure you are checking adjacent counties, also. Most of these large-scale operations have farmland in nearby counties as well, and that needs to be added together.
One of the purposes, perhaps the main purpose of the farm subsidy system was to help the small family farm. All it ended up doing was to delay the inevitable disappearance of the small family farm.
Any small farmer (a relative term, I know) that has debt (interest and principal payments) or is renting farm land, has a higher cost per acre to produce corn and soybeans. The farm subsidy system basically gives the small farmer just enough money to stay in business. They barely can make ends meet in average years. Good years seem far and few between. Toss in a few bad years in a row, the small farmer can't make ends meet, gets foreclosed, or just sells to get out from all the debt.
The big farmer, more efficient because of more acres or less debt (think multi-generational farms/ century farms), can produce corn and soybeans for significantly less cost than the small, indebted or rent paying small farmers. In an average year, the big farmer can make money. Throw in an extra $100,000+ from the federal subsidy system, they do very well.
Both the small farmer and big farmer get crop subsidy payments. The small farmer doesn't have enough money leftover after interest/principal and/or rent payments to buy new underwear. The big farm, profitable without subsidy payments, just puts his/her crop subsidy money in the bank and waits for the small farmer to finally toss in the towel (bankruptcy or just tired of being dirt poor). The big farmers have the cash (courtesy of the government) to buy the small farmer's land. The big farmers just get bigger and richer from a system that was meant to help the small family farmer.
For the small/poor farmer, the crop subisidy programs reeks of welfare. For the big/rich farmer, the crop subsidy system is nothing but a free cash program that costs this country billions and billions of dollars. Iowa farmers received $16 billion from 1995 to 2006. Much of that went to the big/rich farmers.
Just wait, anon., the big/rich farmers will be the reincarnation of the railroad tycoons of the late 1800's. You have not seen the worst of it yet. As before, they are backed by the Feds (meaning us), have something everyone else needs, and everyone in the House or Senate voting on farm bills has thousands of acres of farmland under tillage every year. What needs to happen is that congressmen and senators, if they desire that office, should serve as it was at the inception of this country. They would serve as representatives of their region as a public service and as their responsibility as an American citizen. They would receive no monetary compensation whatsoever. This would totally do away with lifetime politicians who forget WTF. This setup never worked anywhere else. Why should it work here? The entire thing is getting pretty lame. What does Pelosi really know? Nothing. What does Ted Kennedy really know? It doesn't matter. He's dead. What does Obama know? Whatever his wife tells him. "Bring me some coffee, Barack, and tell those bitches to quit hanging around your office. Bill Clinton moved out a long time ago, and I know for a fact he carried Hillary's bras out in that football bag, that's the only way he could get them past the metal detector."
I'm in favor of the supposed intent of farm subsidies, but strongly oppose the unintended consequences as stated by blog #4.
These transfer payments in the developed countries total over $100billion. Agricultural products are then protected from free trade. This means people from poorer countries can't compete freely. Instead we subsidize the International Monetary Fund or World Bank. Rulers of the poor countries often enrich themselves from these loans and the IMF gets stiffed. We would be better served for the poor farmer to be able to compete freely and be enriched through the free market system and have cheaper food prices.
Farm subsidies ensure that we will always have a surplus of food commodities, thereby avoiding possible food shortages that plagued society in generations past. These surpluses also can be traded or sold off where they are needed throughout the world.
That's right. Almost all Western countries use farm subsidies to make sure that their populations will never experience severe food shortages or catastophic problems, such as the dust bowls of the 30's.
What are these guys growing "farm subsidies" for anyway? Is that more profitable than growing crops? I'll bet I could suggest a crop or two that might make them rich pretty quick.
Farmers need to push the state legislature to pass the legalization of marijuana. Now there's a cash crop.
I think Big Nasty should come over here to Grand Junction and hang out with us rural readers. He's the only poster on this stupid site who makes any sense.
The difficulty the gov't has is intent and regulation. They want people to proceed with their intent rather than the letter of the law. Do as I want you to to, not what I'd do.
Clever lawyers have a heyday running an end-around the intent of well-meaning bureaucratic attorneys. And we pay for the unintended consequences.
As a service to our readers, Jefferson Iowa News has added a link on our main web page which connects you to an official USDA web site.
This site lists the farm subsidy recipients in Greene County over the last ten years. You can use this link to obtain information on who is receiving these payments, as well as the amounts they are obtaining.
The link is located along the left-hand edge of our web site, under the heading "Recommended Links". Interesting reading.
12 comments:
Hunter Farms Inc., located in the Jefferson area, received between three and four million dollars in government subsidies over the last ten years. Several other area farms were around a million or more dollars in aid for the same period. This seems excessive.
If you click on this link, it will show you the top 20 farm subsidy recipients in Greene County from 1995 to 2006, a period of 12 years. The Top Recipients list is a bit deceiving, though. If there has been a change in the farm (corporation) name during this time period, you then have to search for two or more names (same owner(s)) then add them together.
For instance, Van Horn Farms is listed under two different names, but has the same owners (check ownership interest). It was Van Horn Inc from 1995 to 2002/3. Total subsidies were $613,626. From 2003 to 2006, it was called Vanhorn Partnership. Total subsidies for those years were $449,336. Combined, in 12 years, Van Horn Farms accepted $1,062,962 in Federal farm subsidies. This number would put Van Horn in 4th place, pushing Kathyrn Shriver down to 5th place. If you play the same "add them up" game with Kathryn, she'd move back up to 4th.
The Farm Subsidy Database isn't perfect, but with a little curiosity, you can find out more than you probably want to know.
If you are using this link to search by county, make sure you are checking adjacent counties, also. Most of these large-scale operations have farmland in nearby counties as well, and that needs to be added together.
One of the purposes, perhaps the main purpose of the farm subsidy system was to help the small family farm. All it ended up doing was to delay the inevitable disappearance of the small family farm.
Any small farmer (a relative term, I know) that has debt (interest and principal payments) or is renting farm land, has a higher cost per acre to produce corn and soybeans. The farm subsidy system basically gives the small farmer just enough money to stay in business. They barely can make ends meet in average years. Good years seem far and few between. Toss in a few bad years in a row, the small farmer can't make ends meet, gets foreclosed, or just sells to get out from all the debt.
The big farmer, more efficient because of more acres or less debt (think multi-generational farms/ century farms), can produce corn and soybeans for significantly less cost than the small, indebted or rent paying small farmers. In an average year, the big farmer can make money. Throw in an extra $100,000+ from the federal subsidy system, they do very well.
Both the small farmer and big farmer get crop subsidy payments. The small farmer doesn't have enough money leftover after interest/principal and/or rent payments to buy new underwear. The big farm, profitable without subsidy payments, just puts his/her crop subsidy money in the bank and waits for the small farmer to finally toss in the towel (bankruptcy or just tired of being dirt poor). The big farmers have the cash (courtesy of the government) to buy the small farmer's land. The big farmers just get bigger and richer from a system that was meant to help the small family farmer.
For the small/poor farmer, the crop subisidy programs reeks of welfare. For the big/rich farmer, the crop subsidy system is nothing but a free cash program that costs this country billions and billions of dollars. Iowa farmers received $16 billion from 1995 to 2006. Much of that went to the big/rich farmers.
Just wait, anon., the big/rich farmers will be the reincarnation of the railroad tycoons of the late 1800's. You have not seen the worst of it yet. As before, they are backed by the Feds (meaning us), have something everyone else needs, and everyone in the House or Senate voting on farm bills has thousands of acres of farmland under tillage every year. What needs to happen is that congressmen and senators, if they desire that office, should serve as it was at the inception of this country. They would serve as representatives of their region as a public service and as their responsibility as an American citizen. They would receive no monetary compensation whatsoever. This would totally do away with lifetime politicians who forget WTF. This setup never worked anywhere else. Why should it work here? The entire thing is getting pretty lame. What does Pelosi really know? Nothing. What does Ted Kennedy really know? It doesn't matter. He's dead. What does Obama know? Whatever his wife tells him. "Bring me some coffee, Barack, and tell those bitches to quit hanging around your office. Bill Clinton moved out a long time ago, and I know for a fact he carried Hillary's bras out in that football bag, that's the only way he could get them past the metal detector."
I'm in favor of the supposed intent of farm subsidies, but strongly oppose the unintended consequences as stated by blog #4.
These transfer payments in the developed countries total over $100billion. Agricultural products are then protected from free trade. This means people from poorer countries can't compete freely. Instead we subsidize the International Monetary Fund or World Bank. Rulers of the poor countries often enrich themselves from these loans and the IMF gets stiffed. We would be better served for the poor farmer to be able to compete freely and be enriched through the free market system and have cheaper food prices.
Farm subsidies ensure that we will always have a surplus of food commodities, thereby avoiding possible food shortages that plagued society in generations past. These surpluses also can be traded or sold off where they are needed throughout the world.
That's right. Almost all Western countries use farm subsidies to make sure that their populations will never experience severe food shortages or catastophic problems, such as the dust bowls of the 30's.
What are these guys growing "farm subsidies" for anyway? Is that more profitable than growing crops? I'll bet I could suggest a crop or two that might make them rich pretty quick.
Farmers need to push the state legislature to pass the legalization of marijuana. Now there's a cash crop.
I think Big Nasty should come over here to Grand Junction and hang out with us rural readers. He's the only poster on this stupid site who makes any sense.
The difficulty the gov't has is intent and regulation. They want people to proceed with their intent rather than the letter of the law. Do as I want you to to, not what I'd do.
Clever lawyers have a heyday running an end-around the intent of well-meaning bureaucratic attorneys. And we pay for the unintended consequences.
As a service to our readers, Jefferson Iowa News has added a link on our main web page which connects you to an official USDA web site.
This site lists the farm subsidy recipients in Greene County over the last ten years. You can use this link to obtain information on who is receiving these payments, as well as the amounts they are obtaining.
The link is located along the left-hand edge of our web site, under the heading "Recommended Links". Interesting reading.
Post a Comment