Where farm subsidies came from, and why they're still here

[nosmokes]

original-grist

*The Short-Term Solution That Stuck
Where farm subsidies came from, and why they're still here
By Tom Philpott
30 Jan 2007
Note: This is the second of a three-column series on the 2007 farm bill. The first article is available here.

Last week, I argued that it makes sense for society to support farming. Everybody needs to eat, and most would prefer to do so without devastating the environment or exploiting labor.

Well, no one can accuse the United States of failing to commit significant resources to agriculture. Between 1995 and 2005, the Environmental Working Group calculates, the government paid farmers $164.7 billion. That averages to about $16 billion per year -- substantially more, for example, than the government spends annually on direct financial aid to college students via Pell Grants.

Given that level of commitment, it's worth asking what taxpayers are gaining in return. A sound national farm policy might be expected to promote an economically vibrant farm sector that produces a bounty of nutritious food while carefully managing natural resources. But despite lavish cash outlays, U.S. farm policy fails on all of those fronts.

Indeed, existing farm policy, as embedded in the soon-to-expire 2002 farm bill, can be shown to actively work against all of those goals.
~snip~
.
.
.
complete article here

[sodenoue]

1. neoliberalism and globalization at work

eat our grain or starve!

[porphyrian]

2. I'll kick that. - n/t

[Katherine Brengle]

3. Correct me if I'm wrong here...

but doesn't our government often pay farmers NOT to produce?

Not to mention that most of the "farms" selling most of the food in this country today are not quaint little family farms with chickens running around and whitewashed shingles... They're corporations, just ones that happen to grow food.

I'd like to see more subsidies go to actually doing something positive, for consumers AND for producers.

[Matariki]

5. As I understand it - sometimes this is to promote good agricultural practices

such as allowing fields to remain fallow every so many years. This keeps land from eventually having all the nutrients stripped from it - especially if the same crop is planted year after year. In cases of smaller farms, it might be difficult to afford NOT to plant all available land. I know that on my grandparent's farm, which is a small to moderate size dairy farm, the taxes on the land have nearly come close to forcing the loss of property that's been in the family for generations.

Additionally, I think it is to help compensate farmers when there is a glut of a certain crop - which would force the price so low that many farmers might not survive. The low prices would be good for the consumer in the short term, but if farms go out of business, or are bought up by large agro-business, it DOESN'T help the consumer in the long term.

I think also, that the main groups of people who want to end farm subsidies are usually Conservatives who believe the 'market' should take care of price.

I don't understand this issue completely, but I suspect it's more complex than 'subsidies = corporate welfare". In fact it's possible, given the fact that Conservatives are eager to get rid of them, that getting rid of them may in fact help agro-business. They would be more able to put smaller farms out of business(?)

[Katherine Brengle]

7. Ah ok --

I think it's a delicate issue - there are great reasons for it and not-so-great reasons - good uses and not-so-good.

I think the same can be said of almost all government programs. Almost all of them can do some great things when implemented the right way, but they can all be used poorly too...

[nosmokes]

16. The main reason for the payments not to plant a crop were to prop up

prices on certain commodities, most often corn. so what you often had was the corporation being paid not to plant corn and getting money from planting soy instead. nice work if you get it, huh?

[twilight_sailing]

4. Way back when

my Dad got a check from the government NOT to farm his acres. He wouldn't have done so anyway, but what the heck. It was free money from the government.

[Matariki]

6. Do you know what the reason was?

[twilight_sailing]

10. Sorry, I don't remember, I was just a little kid.

And that was 40 years ago.

20 years ago the place became, again, a real agricultural enterprise.

Note: If you ever eat a hamburger, pray that that beef came from my old Dad's farm. Nobody on Earth treats his cattle better than my old Dad. :)

[jedr]

8. Most farmers tend to be Republican,

and hate any form of entitlement programs except when it's them getting paid to overproduce. Farming is slipping out of the U.S. and down a vanishing broader toward South America. There crops will produced with slave labor wages and no controls on chemicals or other pollutants and no inspections, the e-coli outbreaks of late are only the beginning. Cheap food is an American tradition. Ma and paw farms ,even with the huge machinery used today, will diminish to only the largest of the bunch. Farmers can thank the Republicans they whom they voted for helping destroy there way of life.

[RC Quake]

12. Farmers where?

I grew up on a farm and from an extended family farming background. We knew all of the farmers in the county we lived in and all the surrounding counties. They were all Democrats. Where do these Republican farmers live? I find it really strange that the farmers with small family farms in the Midwest are mostly Republicans. Actually, that is just an incorrect statement out-right. They aren't.

Maybe the California farmers where the labor from illegals is crucial.

[jedr]

17. Pa. and Ohio

Out of all the farmers I know , about 10% or so are Dem's. Glad to know that some farmers realize that the Rebubs do very little for them......On edit...Welcome to D/U my friend, remember that this is a dissuasion not an argument, and hope that we have many such discussions in the future.

[underpants]

9. Bookmarking for later reading

thanks I have been interesting in farm subsidies for a while now.

[nam78_two]

11. K&R.nt

[Matariki]

13. You might be interested in this

Michael Pollan did a great interview on NPR a while back about the problem with Corn as a mono-crop.

Here's a link to the interview: http://www.michaelpollan.com/press.php?id=16

His ebook "Is corn making us fat?": http://www.amazon.com/Michael-promoting-overproduction-overweight-companies/dp/B0008IR44O/sr=1-1/qid=1170278312/ref=sr_1_1/103-0897429-0727811?ie=UTF8&s=books

and this: http://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dilemma-Natural-History-Meals/dp/1594200823/sr=1-1/qid=1170278371/ref=sr_1_1/103-0897429-0727811?ie=UTF8&s=books

[Matariki]

15. oh yeah - this really puts corn based Ethanol into a different light...

[SpiralHawk]

14. Take a look at CSA - Community Supported Agriculture

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) offers a way for every human being to be directly involved in the care and healing of the earth, while also ensuring a supply of clean, healthy food for their families and their neighbors.

http://www.chiron-communications.com/farms.html

[nosmokes]

19. Ramen Spiral Hawk - support your local farmer!

BuyLocal
Buy Organic
Buy Fair Trade

[Arger68]

18. I was looking at EWG's website the other day.

I know a farmer here in southern Minnesota that is extremely wealthy. She inherited several thousand acres of farmland, I think she has 5000 acres+ bought and paid for (conservative estimate of worth @ $3000.00/acre is $15,000,000. She has gotten over $1,200,000 in subsidies over the last ten years. I figured that works out to almost $27,000 per year over 45 years, the same as someone working from age 20-65. I know many people that won't make that much in a lifetime. I think that at least for crop farming, there should only be subsidies for the first 500-1000 acres or so. That would give a hand to the small farmers but keep the huge corporate farms from taking over.