Posted on 02/01/2007 5:35:26 PM PST by Graybeard58
WASHINGTON -- Thousands of the richest farmers would lose their government subsidies under a Bush administration plan to curb spending.
Proposals released Wednesday would reduce agriculture spending by $18 billion over the next five years. They represent President Bush's vision of a new farm bill: a system of supports that would protect farm income and crop prices and keep food prices stable.
Anyone making more than $200,000 in adjusted gross income would be cut off from farm payments under Bush's plan. At that level, "you're the richest guy in the county," Deputy Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner said.
These producers, about 80,000 in all, are among the top 2.3 percent of taxpayers, officials said. It is hard to know just who would be cut off, said Ken Cook, president of Environmental Working Group, which tracks subsidies. Cook said many high-profile recipients, such as media mogul and CNN founder Ted Turner, probably were cut off in 2002, when Congress imposed the current $2.5 million income cap.
"You end up eliminating absentee owners who have a lot of income they're trying to shelter in agriculture," Cook said. "It could be a small-town lawyer or a business executive in Memphis who's put some money into a cotton plantation."
For everyone else who is eligible, the ceiling on payments would still be $360,000 and there still would be ways some people could collect millions of dollars above the limits.
Most payments go to growers of five major crops -- corn, soybeans, wheat, rice and cotton.
In all, the plan is not a radical departure from current farm programs, which Democratic leaders and major farm groups have pushed to maintain.
"I believe so strongly in what farmers said," Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said, describing forums he held in dozens of states. "They like the structure of this farm bill, but they have a big vision for the future."
Some proposals, such as payment limits for the wealthy, are touchy subjects on Capitol Hill.
So, too, could be Bush's idea to pay farmers when revenues drop rather than when prices are low, which the subsidy program does.
"This safety net will actually work better across commodities to provide a true safety net," Johanns said.
Corn growers like the concept. Many other farm groups want to keep things as they are.
Many changes are designed to fend off trade challenges from other countries. The World Trade Organization in 2005 ruled some cotton subsidies illegal, in a case filed by Brazil.
The administration proposes to:
-- Reduce spending on loan programs, which are viewed as more vulnerable to trade challenges.
-- Boost direct payments and offer additional money to farmers for conservation practices.
-- Continue dairy and sugar programs that limit supplies to support prices.
-- Eliminate a prohibition keeping fruits and vegetables from being grown on land eligible for subsidies.
-- Double purchases of fruits and vegetables for school lunch and other nutrition programs.
-- Provide $2.1 billion in loan guarantees for plants that make ethanol fuel from wood chips, grasses and feedstocks other than corn and provide $1.6 billion to research noncorn sources of ethanol.
Johanns promised changes to the Food Stamp program that would make it available to more working poor and elderly people. He said details must wait until Bush releases his budget plan next week.
A name change for the program is also in store: "Food and nutrition programs, or something other than food stamps," Johanns said.
The House Agriculture Committee chairman, Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said he found some ideas interesting and he would like to pursue them. But, he added, "I don't agree with everything they are suggesting."
His Senate counterpart, Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, said the proposal "takes significant steps in the right direction" but nonetheless "falls short of the investment levels needed to reach our nation's objectives."
Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., applauded limiting payments but wants to see more focus on conservation programs.
Wheat, rice and dairy producers and nutrition groups said the ideas were not enough; cotton growers worried about limiting payments.
Groups that represent sugar growers, fruit and vegetable farmers, conservation groups and food companies said the plan was a good first step.
The biggest general interest farm group, American Farm Bureau Federation, said it would study the ideas. The National Corn Growers Association withheld judgment.
Johanns' plan would cost $87.3 billion over the next five years, not counting food stamps and other nutrition programs, compared with $105 billion spent on farm programs over the past five years.
The current farm bill, written in 2002, expires at the end of this year. Lawmakers are anticipating having fewer dollars for farm programs; Bush has promised to balance the budget within five years, and the Democratic-run Congress is insisting on budget cuts to pay for new spending.
The best thing we could do for farmers is to stop selling grain at rock bottom prices to the rest of the world.
Scrap the whole mess.
Good... Time to get rid of farm subsidies...
Why????
I'll believe any savings when I see it. Sounds like cut and then add. What's with keeping subsidies on anything especially on sugar? I thought that this was supposed to be a capitalist nation and not socialist.
Let the market set the prices and the farmers would be a lot better off without subsidies. I'm not saying we should cut off poor starving nations or anything, just let the market regulate itself.
Who the hell is going to subsidize ME?
I've never taken a penny from my fellow taxpayer, I'm self-employed, single and punished for being successful. I'm taxed, double taxed, and triple taxed, they take so much from me that unless I start making HUGE money it's hard to get ahead of the game. I'm hoping to start making some huge money soon, and I'll be pi$$ed again at the huge chunk they take, unless you make enough money that it doesn't matter anymore.
There are roadblocks to the American Dream that never existed before.
Who else gets money from their fellow taxpayers based on their inability to make a living?
You must not have thought too much on that subject before posting. There are a gazillion people in this country who do just that. Whether from an inability or simply because they don't want to.
Oh? Such as?
The best thing we could do for farmers is to end all government subsidies and let the free markets work.
This is a good start. Subsidies should be eliminated entirely, but I'll take this for now.
It will change nothing what it will do is landlords will switch over to cash rent and push the risk to the tenants
This could bring matters to a head, if handled right. A perfect transition point.
My dad was a farmer up into the early 90's. I remember him getting paid not to plant some areas, or milo for wildlife and such.
That has changed and you can plant all you want and with the ethanol boom which is happening the program is not near as important
Down the hall and to the right ...
Farmer welfare is not a good thing in my opinion...
but what I would really like to see is the VETO PEN on bills with over 6,000 freakin' earmarks for Pete's sake...
ya wanna cut spending- then CUT SPENDING!
oops!
The best thing for local farmers would be to:
1. End all ag subsidies
2. Completely scrap the death tax.
you are correct
Nice issue for compromise. Eliminate the subsidies and the inheritance tax.
2. Completely scrap the death tax.
At least with regard to family farms. Exempt them.
Time to flatten the tax rates again. Reagan came close in the 1980's. The problem is that Congress can't resist fiddling with the tax code.
Has anybody told Bush that he didn't lose the last election, that he wasn't even really running???
With Pubbies like this we don't need Dems.
Let Pelosi strong arm him first, don't just give up -- poor Molly, she didn't hang around to hear her own requiem.
I was talking to a carpenter here in that rich growing region of North Dakota, he had worked as a farm hand and was talking about the miserable life he had working for farmers (low pay, long hours etc). It occurred to me that everybody hates farmers for their greed.
I really don't think the farm state representatives are getting the bang for their pork farm bill buck they think they are. Most of the voters back home aren't farmers and resent all the money that gets shoveled out to them.
I don't want my heirs to get that much money. :) I don't like foundations much either, as a tax dodge, even as I was involved with setting one up, for a client. Each generation should face the prospect of sweat and toil. It is the American way.
It's about time. Any comment yet from Ted Turner?
Bah, humbug!
Welfare queens?
Environmental Working Group's Farm Subsidy data base
Rank Recipient*
✴ ownership information availableLocation Total USDA Subsidies
1995-20051 Riceland Foods Inc Stuttgart, AR 72160 $541,061,667 2 Producers Rice Mill Inc ✴ Wynne, AR 72396 $308,013,630 3 Farmers Rice Coop Sacramento, CA 95851 $145,530,214 4 Chs Inc Saint Paul, MN 55164 $49,037,456 5 Tyler Farms ✴ Helena, AR 72342 $37,009,744 6 Dnrc Trust Land Management - Exem Helena, MT 59620 $35,314,692 7 1st National Bank Sioux Falls-sep Sioux Falls, SD 57101 $28,871,163 8 Ducks Unlimited Inc ✴ Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 $28,338,088 NOTE: Over 80 percent of the payments listed for Ducks Unlimited are 'cost share' reimbursements for technical assistance to restore wetlands at many locations on private lands not owned by D.U. The technical assistance is provided to private landowners under contractual arrangement through USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service. 9 Pilgrim's Pride Corporation ✴ Broadway, VA 22815 $26,461,206 10 Missouri Delta Farms ✴ Sikeston, MO 63801 $25,280,578 11 Montana Board Of Investments - Se Billings, MT 59115 $21,062,181 12 Bureau Of Indian Affairs ✴ Prescott, AZ 86304 $18,606,320 13 Cargill Seed Winnipeg, Mb R3c 4c5, $17,593,150 14 J G Boswell Co Corcoran, CA 93212 $17,290,870 15 Dublin Farms ✴ Corcoran, CA 93212 $16,550,984 16 Due West ✴ Glendora, MS 38928 $16,432,782 17 Morgan Farms ✴ Cleveland, MS 38732 $15,548,876 18 Walker Place ✴ Danville, IL 61832 $14,773,588 19 Napi ✴ Farmington, NM 87499 $14,583,017 20 C.r.i.t. Farms ✴ Parker, AZ 85344 $14,141,411
Seems like Bush believes in redistribution of wealth, by the state. I shouldn't be surprised I guess, but I am.
As a side comment, whether for better or worse, some agricultural jobs will be lost by this plan.
Sweat and toil may be the lot of most of humanity. To have it imposed by our rulers is not the American way, however.
In a free country, you are welcome to deny an inheritance to your children, if you wish. But once you deny me the right to leave my property to my children, the country is no longer free.
My post was flip, but then we tax. So the issue is what should be taxed. I think large estates, is more appealing than most sources of revenue. JMO.
Bingo.
I'm not a believer in government mandated redistribution of wealth, though you are correct the idea certainly has appeal to some voters. An unhealthy appeal IMO, since what it amounts to is one segment of the population voting themselves ownership of property belonging to another segment.
We had cotten and soybeans here in Mississippi. Some field corn is grown in the area, that boom might cause more for sure.
Exactly right, and these subsidies being cut aren't going to the "mom and pop" 3rd or 4th generation farming operation either.
That's the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). A different ball of wax.
I don't see Tyler Chicken on that list. I guess George's job is still safe.
review
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.