Tests for the Tea Party - Part 1: Crop Subsidies

Interesting blog I stumbled into recently.--RG

---------------------------------

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...farm-subsidies
article by Jim Dipeso "the green conservative"
If they can attack the federal deficit by attacking environmentally destructive subsidies for corn and other big crops, they pass.

Do the new Tea Party members of Congress mean what they say about reining in federal spending and special deals for special interests? I have two tests for them: crop subsidies and the 1872 Mining Law. This week, let's focus on crop subsidies.

Crop subsidies, as they are structured today, are the costly legacy of outdated farm policies. They distort markets, force up land values, drive out small producers, and enrich large growers. They ought to be a target-rich environment for Tea Party types sworn to shrink the size of government and put an end to federal favors for powerful interests.

The federal farm subsidy system is straight out of Alice in Wonderland. It's a world unto itself, a thicket of bewildering programs that comes with a deluxe package of jargon and acronyms that are opaque to anyone except the most dedicated and/or foolhardy farm policy geeks.

The basics: Five crops - corn, wheat, cotton, rice, and soybeans - scoop up the lion's share of crop payment subsidies, the largest subset in the universe of federal farm subsidies. Between 1995 and 2009, the Big Five crops received $170 billion in payments, out of nearly $247 billion in total farm subsidies paid during that period, according to the Environmental Working Group's fabulous farm subsidies data base.

Very briefly, crop payments include the following:

Direct Payments - paid every year, regardless of a farm's financial condition, whether farmers are getting good prices for their crops, bad prices, or even if they have planted nothing at all.

Counter-Cyclical Payments - paid when crop prices fall below a target set by Congress.

Loan Deficiency Payments - paid to make up the difference between crop loan target prices set by Congress and market prices, which has the perverse result of farmers hoping for prices to fall.

There is much, much more. Environmental Working Group has a good primer on the menagerie of crop and other subsidy programs available to farmers.

Anyway, a leading argument made for crop payments is that farmers face market dynamics that other industries don't, leading to recurring imbalances in supply and demand that can lead to hardship. Once seeds are in the ground, farmers can't switch their crops if market conditions change. Weather is another source of unpredictability.

The counter argument is that crop payments distort food markets, inflate land values, violate international trade rules, and hasten the concentration of farms into fewer and larger hands. Payments encourage overproduction, which lowers prices, which triggers price support payments. Like a breeder reactor, the subsidy system feeds on its own fuel, courtesy of the taxpayers.

Tea Party favorites in Congress ought to go after this mess of deficit-inflating pottage with a vengeance. A few of the newly elected TP'ers, however, have done the old soft shoe when faced with hard questions about crop subsidies.

Senator-elect Rand Paul of Kentucky - whose state received nearly $1.8 billion in Big Five subsidies between 1995 and 2009 - indulged in a bit of dancing during the election campaign. At first, he said he does not favor "giving welfare to business." Later, however, he backpedaled, claiming to be a moderate on farm subsidies and offering the consolation prize of pledging to root out waste and abuse in the program.

Representative-elect Vicky Hartzler of Missouri - her state received more than $5.7 billion in Big Five crop subsidies between 1995 and 2009 - claims that crop payments are needed to protect national security by guaranteeing the U.S. food supply. Agricultural economist Ed Lotterman says Hartzler's view doesn't pass the laugh test.

"Since subsidies are no longer tied to production, as they once were, and since we are large net exporters of most major crops and some livestock products, (Hartzler's argument) is far from credible. No respected agricultural economist endorses this view," Lotterman wrote recently.

Hartzler Farms received nearly $775,000 in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2009, of which nearly $659,000 were payments for corn, wheat, and soybeans. Draw your own conclusions.

Hartzler has tried to make an issue out of conservation payments that farmers receive for keeping erodible land fallow, protecting wetlands, and providing other ecosystem maintenance services. Conservation payments accounted for 13 percent of the 1995-2009 farm subsidies total. Her criticism raises broader questions: As a country, what do we want out of our farms? Certainly, we want good, healthy food at prices fair to producers and consumers. Are there other reasons to help farmers? Conserving and protecting natural resources? Boosting food exports? Keeping small, family farms in business? All, some, or none of the above?

Until we and our elected representatives have a serious, facts-based discussion about these root-level issues and are prepared to revise farm policies accordingly, we will go on spending taxpayer dollars in ways that bloat the federal debt and fail to deliver sufficient value in return.

That's a full plate of questions for Congress' Tea Party favorites to chew on. Time will tell whether they can deliver on their promises or contract a case of political indigestion.

Next week: The 1872 Mining Law.

Those payments are more in line to keep the govt in somewhat control of the farm situation. Some guys ARE rejecting the farm program. Only because they can do what they want then. The only reason wetlands exist is because if you drain them the govt. can take funds away from you and basically hold you hostage. CRP is a joke. They need to phase it out. Getting rid of CRP would add more land base, bring more dollars into rural areas, cheapen food and lower the farm payments. You want more ducks and geese? Tear down your garage and build a duck pond. Its always someone else's responsibility to preserve nature, right? The whole idea of farmers getting rich off of this is laughable. I'd make the same much regardless if they backed it off or not. It does allow you to be more aggressive however, which leads to younger farmers being able to start. It wouldn't bother me to axe a lot of it. They main component that helps me is being able to buy insurance. I'm competing against other farmers, as long as everyone is in the same boat, it doesn't matter. Exports will be a problem as IIRC Europe always had a much higher subsidies for their farmers.


Writer doesn't know what he's talking about, subsidies help the smaller farmer stay competitive. But its much more PC to attack "big corporate farms". When in actuality most "evil" farms are still family owned, at least in the midwest.


It is easy to bitch about the farms, america has had the cheapest food supply as a percent of income for a long time. That's what the USDA ultimately want, a cheap reliable food source. When corn was much below production cost, everyone said that farmers need to find a new market. Now that ethanol is in full swing, they bitch at farmers that we shouldn't use it for fuel without knowing the facts. IMO, the ethanol subsidy needs to be worked on but not without upping the mandate.

Govt. subsidized gas is more expensive than ethanol but very few trace true production cost of petroleum like they do with ethanol. Plus very few die protecting our cheap ethanol.


Remember that the Farm Program funds are about 2/3's WIC, School lunch, and food stamp programs. Haven't a lot of people been saying we need to trim this part, administratively also? Wait, wasn't it only a couple days ago a guy asked about WIC and the general consensus was that he should grab as much as he can even if he didn't need it?



All in all what i'm getting at is I agree that there needs to be cuts here but alot of the accusations that get thrown around are inaccurate or just plain wrong.

Signal to me when the Kock Bros get their tea baggin, duped shills to whine about tax breaks and subsidies for the oil/gascos.

Again with the tea baggers crap. Are you 12 years old?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

Wait, wasn't it only a couple days ago a guy asked about WIC and the general consensus was that he should grab as much as he can even if he didn't need it?

---

General consensus? There was like 2 or 3 people that said he should do that. Everybody else told him if he didn't need it then he shouldn't take it.

Take about making false implications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

Wait, wasn't it only a couple days ago a guy asked about WIC and the general consensus was that he should grab as much as he can even if he didn't need it?

---

Not to my recollection. Easily determined.

The consensus was that he should not take it if he didn't need it. Fairly split between those who said he should and those who said he shouldn't, but more towards the "don't" end. My count, as fair as I could get was 7 against, 4 for.

I was one of those opposed, FWIW.

tea baggers are grass roots dupes, shills, and yes, they are crap.

I tend to exaggerate some. Apparently duff exaggerated on the downside. Regardless doesn't that number seem awfully high? Thing I took away from that thread is the guy got static for being in the military and even Kori told him to get the freebies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

tea baggers are grass roots dupes, shills, and yes, they are crap.

---

The only thing i seem to see you post is insults. Can't you post that crap in a troll forum or somewhere where its appreciated? Go call Rome in the jungle or something.

Dim o crap hahahahha I'm freakin' hilarious, I'm going to post it over and over again because I can't get my meaning across.


You're like the Peter Griffin of this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

Those payments are more in line to keep the govt in somewhat control of the farm situation. Some guys ARE rejecting the farm program. Only because they can do what they want then. The only reason wetlands exist is because if you drain them the govt. can take funds away from you and basically hold you hostage. CRP is a joke. They need to phase it out. Getting rid of CRP would add more land base, bring more dollars into rural areas, cheapen food and lower the farm payments. You want more ducks and geese? Tear down your garage and build a duck pond. Its always someone else's responsibility to preserve nature, right? The whole idea of farmers getting rich off of this is laughable. I'd make the same much regardless if they backed it off or not. It does allow you to be more aggressive however, which leads to younger farmers being able to start. It wouldn't bother me to axe a lot of it. They main component that helps me is being able to buy insurance. I'm competing against other farmers, as long as everyone is in the same boat, it doesn't matter. Exports will be a problem as IIRC Europe always had a much higher subsidies for their farmers.


Writer doesn't know what he's talking about, subsidies help the smaller farmer stay competitive. But its much more PC to attack "big corporate farms". When in actuality most "evil" farms are still family owned, at least in the midwest.


It is easy to bitch about the farms, america has had the cheapest food supply as a percent of income for a long time. That's what the USDA ultimately want, a cheap reliable food source. When corn was much below production cost, everyone said that farmers need to find a new market. Now that ethanol is in full swing, they bitch at farmers that we shouldn't use it for fuel without knowing the facts. IMO, the ethanol subsidy needs to be worked on but not without upping the mandate.

Govt. subsidized gas is more expensive than ethanol but very few trace true production cost of petroleum like they do with ethanol. Plus very few die protecting our cheap ethanol.


Remember that the Farm Program funds are about 2/3's WIC, School lunch, and food stamp programs. Haven't a lot of people been saying we need to trim this part, administratively also? Wait, wasn't it only a couple days ago a guy asked about WIC and the general consensus was that he should grab as much as he can even if he didn't need it?



All in all what i'm getting at is I agree that there needs to be cuts here but alot of the accusations that get thrown around are inaccurate or just plain wrong.

---

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding the environment and farms, but on the subject of farm subsidies the fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no reason to have them and they encourage growth of crops that otherwise would not be grown.

Look at the absolute inclusion of high fructose corn syrup in EVERYTHING as a good sign of this. We grow far too much corn but that is possible due to artificial payments by the government.

Ethanol derived from corn is worthless as hell and another product of bad policy. Its neither clean nor more efficient and is jut another way to encourage corn growth.

The OP makes an excellent point that if the Tea Party is really about smaller government this should be one of their main targets.

That would be great if we could get rid of crop and ethanol subsidies. However, the elected Tea Party members are too small to have a very large voice. I doubt it will come to pass, unless pressure is put on the republican establishment.

I also doubt any Tea Party member would vote to end a subsidy that benefits his or her district.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding the environment and farms, but on the subject of farm subsidies the fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no reason to have them and they encourage growth of crops that otherwise would not be grown.

Look at the absolute inclusion of high fructose corn syrup in EVERYTHING as a good sign of this. We grow far too much corn but that is possible due to artificial payments by the government.

Ethanol derived from corn is worthless as hell and another product of bad policy. Its neither clean nor more efficient and is jut another way to encourage corn growth.

The OP makes an excellent point that if the Tea Party is really about smaller government this should be one of their main targets.

---

Wrong, you're believing the BS spread about corn based ethanol. More efficient than what? Even IF corn was only at a 1:1 ratio, which it is NOT. You're STILL getting a superior quality feed in DDG's that cattle do MUCH, MUCH better on than corn. Look at ethanol as a byproduct of DDG's if you don't like ethanol.



My environment bit has to do with the fact that CRP is glossed over as saving the land/enviroment, never mind that its 13? percent of the subsidies. Not to mention, cane fields are burned off. That's REEAAALLLYYY good for the enviroment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8KgSFzdD7k

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

Wrong, you're believing the BS spread about corn based ethanol. More efficient than what? Even IF corn was only at a 1:1 ratio, which it is NOT. You're STILL getting a superior quality feed in DDG's that cattle do MUCH, MUCH better on than corn. Look at ethanol as a byproduct of DDG's if you don't like ethanol.

---

More efficient than regular gasoline. What else would I be comparing it to? Its a lower quality fuel that requires subsidies. No thanks.

Quote:

---

My environment bit has to do with the fact that CRP is glossed over as saving the land/enviroment, never mind that its 13? percent of the subsidies. Not to mention, cane fields are burned off. That's REEAAALLLYYY good for the enviroment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8KgSFzdD7k

---

Ramble all you want about the environment, but the amount of corn grown in this country due to subsidies is neither good for our health nor the environment.

You've given no good reason to continue to subsidize farmers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding the environment and farms, but on the subject of farm subsidies the fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no reason to have them and they encourage growth of crops that otherwise would not be grown.

Look at the absolute inclusion of high fructose corn syrup in EVERYTHING as a good sign of this. We grow far too much corn but that is possible due to artificial payments by the government.

Ethanol derived from corn is worthless as hell and another product of bad policy. Its neither clean nor more efficient and is jut another way to encourage corn growth.

The OP makes an excellent point that if the Tea Party is really about smaller government this should be one of their main targets.

---

:tu & +1

btw, just how big is the Tea Party caucus?

Does it have enough votes to do anything all on its own?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

More efficient than regular gasoline. What else would I be comparing it to? Its a lower quality fuel that requires subsidies. No thanks.



Ramble all you want about the environment, but the amount of corn grown in this country due to subsidies is neither good for our health nor the environment.

You've given no good reason to continue to subsidize farmers.

---

Gas isn't getting subsidies? You seem to gloss over that fuel is subsidized more than ethanol. You couldn't afford the REAL cost of gas. Why the hell do you think we "protect" the mid east so much????


If corn based ethanol was gone, cane would replace it. It wouldn't just magically disappear and our fuel would be 100% gas again.

Lotsa of tea baggin, white, red-state guvmint-hatin bubbas and BigFood mega-corps living off 10s of $Bs of taxpayers' ethanol socialist subsidies. I'd be very surprised if ethanol and other agriculture subsidies are ever decreased, never mind eliminated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

Gas isn't getting subsidies? You seem to gloss over that fuel is subsidized more than ethanol. You couldn't afford the REAL cost of gas. Why the hell do you think we "protect" the mid east so much????


If corn based ethanol was gone, cane would replace it. It wouldn't just magically disappear and our fuel would be 100% gas again.

---

I don't want gas subsidized. In fact I've argued against it more than anyone on this forum. Good strawman though.

There is no sound reason for funding corn ethanol other than to artificially help a special interest. I've had enough of seeing corn subsidies. I'm sorry if you're in the industry and you need them, but that doesn't mean I have to support them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

tea baggers are grass roots dupes, shills, and yes, they are crap.

---

Hey, thanks boutons, for reminding me to send
them a nice donation. You always remind people
of which party to support.

:toast

Only problem I have with subsidies for farmers is that
many corporate farms end up getting them. Take that
away and many companies would get out of the business.

I think I'll pass on less mileage for a higher price. Ethanol as a fuel is horseshit. Besides, we're going to need it all for drinking as the teabaggers and blue dogs continue trying to turn back the clock on our nation to the 1920s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

I think I'll pass on less mileage for a higher price. Ethanol as a fuel is horseshit. Besides, we're going to need it all for drinking as the teabaggers and blue dogs continue trying to turn back the clock on our nation to the 1920s.

---

Huh?:rollin

You gotta be kiddin me.

"turn back the clock on our nation to the 1920s."

Fait accompli for concentration of wealth, and of course concentration of power that wealth buys.

If the cost externalities were charged to the cost of intensive mono-culture agriculture like corn and soy and of CFOs, industrial food would cost a lot more. And America would probably be a lot healthier. The entire industrial pathogenic food system in USA is one, huge corporate racket protected by the owned politicians that support and protect it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

................... I'm sorry if you're in the industry and you need them, but that doesn't mean I have to support them.

---

Why should I bother to respond if your're obviously not reading any of my posts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I also doubt any Tea Party member would vote to end a subsidy that benefits his or her district.

---

Shocker.

It's funny that even the hero of the Paultards backpeddled on the issue.

Quote:

---

Senator-elect Rand Paul of Kentucky - whose state received nearly $1.8 billion in Big Five subsidies between 1995 and 2009 - indulged in a bit of dancing during the election campaign. At first, he said he does not favor "giving welfare to business." Later, however, he backpedaled, claiming to be a moderate on farm subsidies and offering the consolation prize of pledging to root out waste and abuse in the program.

---

Ahem....

Whoopsies.

This is a pretty good graphical representation of the Federal Budget.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...us/budget.html

It may help answer the OP's delima. See if you can find Agricultural spending. It may shed some light on why anybody (Tea Party or otherwise) would choose not to battle over farm subsidies.

(Just ignore the big block that says Net Interest. That's just for pretend. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lazerelmo

This is a pretty good graphical representation of the Federal Budget.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...us/budget.html

It may help answer the OP's delima. See if you can find Agricultural spending. It may shed some light on why anybody (Tea Party or otherwise) would choose not to battle over farm subsidies.

(Just ignore the big block that says Net Interest. That's just for pretend. :)

---

So what you're saying is that the Tea Party is going to go to bat against large defense spending?

Or are you saying that bad spending is ok as long as its not a large portion of the budget?

I would remind some of you. Farmers were at one time
the original "capitalist" of this nation. And many still are.
I have no problem with them being provided with
insurance. Outright gifts of money, no. The farmers of
today are not necessarily the farmers of yesteryear.

Farmers were capitalists only when the made enough profits, like selling the main cash crop of the Colonies, HEMP. Ever heard of "dirt poor"

Do you mean farmers as "entrepreneurs"? Do you know what you mean at all? :lol

Most of the super rich independent farmers, esp cotton farmers, got that with with $Ms of subsidies. At one time, the AVERAGE subsidy for a cotton farmer was $1M/year, which helped them export cotton and destroy subsistence farmers in Africa and India, much the way USA corn subsidies helped destroy 1000s of subsistence corn farmers in MX.

Corporations have pretty much destroyed independent farmers in USA, along with destroying the land, water, and air with pesticides,herbicides, and intensive mono-culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lazerelmo

This is a pretty good graphical representation of the Federal Budget.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...us/budget.html

It may help answer the OP's delima. See if you can find Agricultural spending. It may shed some light on why anybody (Tea Party or otherwise) would choose not to battle over farm subsidies.

(Just ignore the big block that says Net Interest. That's just for pretend. :)

---

Best point made yet. It is a fairly small portion of the budget.

It also makes a really really good point about how efficient Medicare is as an insurance program.

Cost of Medicare: $500Bn

Cost of administration of program: $5.5Bn, or about 1.5%

Private HMO's or insurers are good if they get their administrative costs down to 18%, and still have to make a profit for shareholders of about 20% on top of THAT, so about 40% of your private insurance premium goes to overhead and profit.

I wonder what might get "off books" of Medicare like employee retierment costs, that is in another section of the budget, but still, it seems to counter the "inefficient government" bit to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Private HMO's or insurers are good if they get their administrative costs down to 18%, and still have to make a profit for shareholders of about 20% on top of THAT, so about 40% of your private insurance premium goes to overhead and profit.

---

That's bull. Find me an HMO that's returning a 20% profit margin to shareholders.

If you can, I'm going to invest in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Best point made yet. It is a fairly small portion of the budget.

It also makes a really really good point about how efficient Medicare is as an insurance program.

Cost of Medicare: $500Bn

Cost of administration of program: $5.5Bn, or about 1.5%

Private HMO's or insurers are good if they get their administrative costs down to 18%, and still have to make a profit for shareholders of about 20% on top of THAT, so about 40% of your private insurance premium goes to overhead and profit.

I wonder what might get "off books" of Medicare like employee retierment costs, that is in another section of the budget, but still, it seems to counter the "inefficient government" bit to me.

---

Aside from the ludicrous 20% margin, it's apples and oranges when you compare administration of Medicare to a typical Insurance comapny.
There are costs that are simply not part of medicare's budget because they are institutionalized in other areas of the Fed..ie record keeping.
Also, the methods for calculating admin costs are different for each model, because, the models are different as are the populations they serve.
I'm not refuting the idea that Medicare can be cost effective, but it's not exactly smoking private insurance in that respect.
And again, cost is a stupid metric to measure success. We need to start looking at effectiveness. Efficiency and effectiveness are not always mutual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

So what you're saying is that the Tea Party is going to go to bat against large defense spending?

Or are you saying that bad spending is ok as long as its not a large portion of the budget?

---

I'm saying there are larger areas of discretionary spending to target if one wanted to make deep cuts in the budget. I don't think most Tea Party types consider defense discretionary.

I am also not saying that farm subsidies are necessarily bad spending.

GO MEAT!

Defense is not discretionary but the health of our citizens is. In other words, the tea party can just arbitrarily label whatever they want as non discretionary to sidestep it if it violates their - and i use the word loosely - principles.

There's pretty much no defense for supporting subsidies of these sort while claiming to be for a free market system. I don't know why you're trying so hard to find one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

I tend to exaggerate some. Apparently duff exaggerated on the downside. Regardless doesn't that number seem awfully high? Thing I took away from that thread is the guy got static for being in the military and even Kori told him to get the freebies.

---

I think I just made a joke that he should reconsider taking it because of the cost of baby formula.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

I think I just made a joke that he should reconsider taking it because of the cost of baby formula.

---

Not an inconsiderable expense.

Your half-serious suggestion was part of why it was kind of hard to actually tally the opinions in the for/against columns. :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

Aside from the ludicrous 20% margin, it's apples and oranges when you compare administration of Medicare to a typical Insurance comapny.
There are costs that are simply not part of medicare's budget because they are institutionalized in other areas of the Fed..ie record keeping.
Also, the methods for calculating admin costs are different for each model, because, the models are different as are the populations they serve.
I'm not refuting the idea that Medicare can be cost effective, but it's not exactly smoking private insurance in that respect.
And again, cost is a stupid metric to measure success. We need to start looking at effectiveness. Efficiency and effectiveness are not always mutual.

---

Yeah, it is hard to make a direct comparison, as I noted.

Profit margin of 20% is fairly arbitrary, but seems to be about what they shoot for, based on my readings of insurance company financials. Generally they get something less.

The thing about insurance though, is that the larger your pool of people, the easier it is to predict outcomes.

I suspect that Medicare simply because of the sheer size gets some substantial cost savings.

It also gets to piggy-back off the efforts of the IRS in collecting premiums. The IRS would be doing that anyways, so that is a "gimmie" cost that would not be fairly attributed to the program. In comparing cost/benefits of things, those are two things that CMS has in its favor.

Large bureaucracy and ponderousness are two distinct things against, in the interests of being intellectually honest.

If one steps back and looks at the system of private insurance, you have a lot of systemic inefficiency. Every company has to have it's own HR department, payroll, etc. There is also the problem of different standards when it comes to claim forms, who pays at what level, what will be covered, etc.

Navigating all of this consumes a LOT of resources on the part of providers.

While I would be hard-pressed to quantify all of this, my gut says that the private system is not quite as efficient as its proponents suppose, nor is Medicare quite as inefficient as its opponents want to make it out to be.

Is it optimal? Hardly.

But then neither is private insurance.

RSC is specifically targeting organic farmers, sugar growers, and an export promotion program that benefits fruit and vegetable growers. One program in specific helps subsidize farmers who are trying to obtain organic certification, which costs at most $56 million a year.

Not only is this a drop in the bucket compared to many other programs, but the program is already on the verge of completely running out of funds by the time the new fiscal year begins in Fall 2011.

Meanwhile, RSC did not at all address the $5 billion in direct payments made every single year to industrial growers of cotton, soy, corn, rice, and wheat. Such payments are, by far, the bulk of government agricultural spending, and they are responsible for the artificially low cost of commodity crops used to produce cheap, unhealthy processed foods.

http://www.naturalnews.com/031154_or...#ixzz1CZMn5515