Posted on 07/02/2006 5:12:54 AM PDT by grjr21
EL CAMPO, Tex. -- Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years.
Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice.
Matthews is not alone. Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post.
Some of them collect hundreds of thousands of dollars without planting a seed. Mary Anna Hudson, 87, from the River Oaks neighborhood in Houston, has received $191,000 over the past decade. For Houston surgeon Jimmy Frank Howell, the total was $490,709.
"I don't agree with the government's policy," said Matthews, who wanted to give the money back but was told it would just go to other landowners. "They give all of this money to landowners who don't even farm, while real farmers can't afford to get started. It's wrong."
-snip-
subsidy that benefits millionaire landowners, foreign speculators and absentee landlords, as well as farmers.
Most of the money goes to real farmers who grow crops on their land, but they are under no obligation to grow the crop being subsidized. They can switch to a different crop or raise cattle or even grow a stand of timber -- and still get the government payments. The cash comes with so few restrictions that subdivision developers who buy farmland advertise that homeowners can collect farm subsidies on their new back yards.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Does this irk anybody else or is it just me ?
I don't farm, either. How do I get a piece of this action?
The above tells me something of the character of Mr. Matthews.
Maybe someone can explain what this waste of taxpayers money program is supposed to accomplish. And why it is giving away millions to people who are not the original owners of farmland.
Expecting anything the government does to make sense.........priceless!
I had a garden at one time. Where's my check?
OPM!!!
On another thread, I responded to a person extolling the virtues of our socialist society. Unfortunately, there are Dachas here, too!
Just you...
Just wait!
In november, get out and elect republicans, once they take control of congress they'll stand up for honesty and integrity in government!
Oh, wait................
"Matthews said he originally was not going to take the money. But he said Petty told him that it would just go to other landowners. "I thought, heck, why should I do that? I wasn't going to give it to somebody else to put in their pocket." Instead, he uses the money to fund scholarships at the county fair and two local high schools, he said.
Mr. Matthews is no better than someone gaming the welfare system, IMHO. And again, what he says speaks volumes...
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything."
-- Josef Stalin
Though there is debate if he actually said it...
Mr. Matthews uses the money to fund scholarships and you think he is "gaming the system." Some people don't bother to think at all. If he gave the money back it would land in some greedy non farmer's pocket, this was he puts it to a good use, helping some student. How is that gaming the system?
Thank Goodness! Imagine how much the government would have to pay them if they DID plant crops!
Mark
Not nearly as much as the fact that poor suffering farmers like Ted Turner get farm subsidies.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0203.html
Though there is debate if he actually said it...
Yes.
Wally O'Dell is the one who matters, though.
Doing something with the money he states he should not be getting but is legally entitled to, does not make getting the farm assistance any less egregious.
It's not an all that efficient system in providing money for students. I'd have a lot more respect for Mr. Matthews if he would just not accept the money. He could teach a valuable lesson to those students in doing so.
Like the developers and homeowners in this article, you buy some land from a farmer who is currently receiving these subsidies. Then you get the subsidies.
However, if you don't think the farmer took that into consideration when he listed the selling price of his property, then you are seriously underestimating him.
It's FUBAR. Things have to get back to how they should be (can you imagine T. Jefferson or any other founders of this country going for this shit?) or something bad will eventually hit the fan.
It's like the Roman empire.
What you are about to read is a joke, but it could be real.
TO: Honorable Secretary of Agriculture
Washington, D.C
Dear Sir,
I thought I might go into business to supplement my welfare check.
My friend over at Wells, Iowa received a check for $1,000 from the Government for not raising hogs. Right now I'm getting extra help from the government and Red Cross while I'm displaced but when that stops I want to go into the "not-raising-hogs" business.
What I want to know is, in your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to raise hogs on, and what is the best breed of hogs not to raise?
I want to be sure that I approach this endeavor in keeping with all governmental policies. I would prefer not to raise razorbacks, but if that is not a good breed not to raise, then I will just as gladly not raise Yorkshires or Durocs. As I see it, the hardest part of this program will be in keeping an accurate inventory of how many hogs I haven't raised.
My friend, Peterson, is very joyful about the future of the
business. He has been raising hogs for twenty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was $422 in 1968, until this year when he got your check for $1000 for not raising hogs. If I get $1000 for not raising 50 hogs, will I get $2000 for not raising 100 hogs? I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4000 hogs not raised, which will mean about $80,000 the first year. Then I can afford an airplane.
Now another thing, these hogs I will not raise will not eat 100,000 bushels of corn. I understand that you also pay farmers for not raising corn and wheat. Will I qualify for payments for not raising wheat and corn not to feed the 4000 hogs I am not going to raise?
Also, I am considering the "not milking cows" business, so send me any information you have on that too. In view of these circumstances, you understand that I will be totally unemployed and plan to file for unemployment and food stamps.
Be assured you will have my vote in the coming election.
Patriotically Yours,
Ima Taker
PS. Please notify me when you are giving out more free cheese.
The Agricultural subsidy program, like most Government programs, is a joke.
Think Hank Kimball of Green Acres times ten.
Another program that won't die. Its obivious this program needs to be shut down. Those who work there don't want their jobs to go away so will state that they give out so much $ that they still need to be around. It the program was shut down, would anyone notice.
There needs to be a process to determine when programs are no longer affective and be reduced or closed.
The goal of the program is reelection through bribery.
Of course, the same could be said of all farm subsidies, the rest of which dwarf this tiny $1.3 billion.
The professional bureaucrats who live and work in the beltway have better access to your representatives than you do.
It's so the princes of Incumbistan can stay in power.
That's not the way it works in my neck of the woods...
First off, the payments are NOT automatic...You have to get approved on a yearly basis...You are then not allowed to do anything with the land...It is 'set aside'...There are a lot of stipulations...
This is different than the price supports that are paid to some farmers...
I have always said, let farmers grow all they want to and pay us not to buy it.
No you are wrong.
First he's giving the money to something important. By turning the money away he's taking a chance that someone greedy will do nothing with it.
So in effect he's turning it right around to charity.
Second he's also speaking out in the article. If he wanted to keep things the way they are he would say nothing and keep doing whatever he wants to do.
Instead he's saying "Hey! We have a problem. Let's go fix it."
So he's not gaming at all because he's not hiding the fact that he gets money he shouldn't.
He's advocating change.. not keeping it the same.
I respectfully have to disagree with your position.
We need to bring back free market principles.
If Mr. Matthews believes he should not be getting the money, he should not take it. Taking the money in one action and then in the next saying there should be change in the program so that folks like him are not eligible for ag payments from this perspective seems nonsensical.
But again, that is from this perspective.
"It's easy to take the government money and then do something noble with that money."
I agree with you, although I'll give Mr. Matthews a little slack for at least saying he doesn't want the money.
This is no different than Katrina "victims" collecting free money from FEMA. Farmers who accept these payments are sowing BS and harvesting the taxpayer.
Whenever I buy a gallon of milk I'm reminded of how effective government is with it's agricultural programs.
You are not alone.
We have 25 acres, wonder if we can get some of that 'free taxpayer cash'.
Worse than that is the artificial sugar prices that are set by the government. Everyone pays for this nonsense.
we have had a RINO Congress for over 10 years and a RINO president, what do you expect.
Tell them you're milking 50 cows in your 3 car garage and will offer to shut down the op and turn it over for endangered mouse habitat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.