Stuck on the Farm (Agricultural Subsidies to Increase in Spite of Record Farm Income)

Washington Post ^ | 9 March 2008 | Staff

[shrinkermd]

AS CONGRESS and the administration wrangle over a new farm bill before the current version expires next Saturday, here are two numbers that may help clarify the issues: $5.74 and $92.3 billion. The former is the price of a bushel of corn on Wednesday, a historic high. The latter is the Agriculture Department's estimate for farm income; it is 4.1 percent above the $88.7 billion farmers made in 2007 and 51 percent above the average for the past 10 years.

Yet in this flush time for farmers, House and Senate conferees are contemplating a farm bill that might cost $10 billion more over the next decade than the current law would have. ...but also about $5 billion a year in cash transfers to corn, soybean, wheat, cotton and rice farmers over the next five years. So far, there are no meaningful limits on the amount each farm enterprise can receive. Thus, plenty of this federal largess will be showered on people much richer than the average American, who is struggling with higher food costs

...The real point is that there is no justification whatsoever for spending billions more on agriculture, no matter how it's paid for. Instead, the bill should have been redrafted to reflect new economic realities. Congress should cut crop subsidies and cap payments to well-to-do farmers, devoting the savings to deficit reduction and increases in food stamps, so that the poor can afford higher grocery prices.... Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) recently circulated a letter among his colleagues showing how this could be done, through 10 modest changes to the law, among them a means test for subsidies that would still let farm households making up to $200,000...But cotton interests, represented e Senate by Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), have resisted any ... theBush administration is insisting on means-testing...

[Don Corleone]

Nothing resembles ‘Eternal Life’ more than a government program...to paraphrase R.Maximus.

[RKBA Democrat]

Corporate socialism at it’s best.

[Wolfie]

They’re just getting what they paid for.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

There may be some legitimacy here. Because of the ethanol boondoggle, worldwide food supplies are at dangerously low levels. So by increasing the subsidy, I would assume that they want farmers to grow extra this year, to help replace those supplies.

As an aside, I once saw a map of the US, showing the “military industrial complex” that just blanketed about half of the country in tiny red dots. It was noted that “American agribusiness” could have easily covered the entire other half of the US.

Truly the world’s breadbasket.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

There may be some legitimacy here. Because of the ethanol boondoggle, worldwide food supplies are at dangerously low levels. So by increasing the subsidy, I would assume that they want farmers to grow extra this year, to help replace those supplies.

I would think having corn and wheat selling at all time records would be enough incentive to grow as much as you can. Silly me, I still think the free market works!

[STONEWALLS]

....”modest changes to the law, among them a means test for subsidies that would still let farm households making up to $200,000...”

....$200,000 is not that much....a new tractor will run you $100,000; new combine $250,000...fertilizer/pesticide easily $100,000 year....and we all know what’s happening to the cost of fuel...in our home we quit worrying about stuff like this and in 2003 bought shares of Chevron, John Deere and Bunge....so far, so good.

[VOA]

bump