Tests for the Tea Party - Part 1: Crop Subsidies

[RandomGuy]

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Crop subsidies, as they are structured today, are the costly legacy of outdated farm policies.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.

[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 compe ive. 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 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 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.

[boutons_deux]

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

[sickdsm]

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

[Duff McCartney]

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.

[RandomGuy]

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.

[boutons_deux]

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

[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.

[sickdsm]

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.

[MannyIsGod]

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 compe ive. 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 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 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 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.

[Wild Cobra]

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.

[ChumpDumper]

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

[sickdsm]

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 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

[MannyIsGod]

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.

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.

[coyotes_geek]

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 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.

& +1

[Winehole23]

btw, just how big is the Tea Party caucus?

[Winehole23]

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

[sickdsm]

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 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.

[boutons_deux]

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.

[MannyIsGod]

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 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.

[xrayzebra]

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.

[xrayzebra]

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.

[baseline bum]

I think I'll pass on less mileage for a higher price. Ethanol as a fuel is horse . 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.

[xrayzebra]

I think I'll pass on less mileage for a higher price. Ethanol as a fuel is horse . 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?

You gotta be kiddin me.

[boutons_deux]

"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.