Are farm subsidies a good or bad thing from a progressive point of view?

[VoteProgressive]

I hear my farmer friends talking about getting paid not to grow crops or getting $50 an acre from the government to grow corn.

I am still not sure why we need to pay farmers to grow corn. Or pay them not to.

Is this money well spent?

[Andy823]

1. It's a waste of money!

The vast majority of subsides go to big corporations who bought up farm land and now make billions in subsidies each year.

[VoteProgressive]

3. That was my worry also? But is food cheaper because of this? Worth the cost?

[BoWanZi]

12. I thought that farm subsidies were supposed to keep food prices semi-inflated

To prevent farmers from going broke because of falling commodity prices such as wheat or corn tanking. I don't know, but that is what I learned years ago.

They are heavily over abused these days though, dunno how to fix them?

[Beaverhausen]

2. Read any book by Michael Pollan

http://michaelpollan.com/

http://michaelpollan.com/tag/farm-policy-agricultural-subsidies/

[VoteProgressive]

5. Want to recommend the best one to start with?

[Beaverhausen]

I just added links to his website

poke around there and read. He is the man.

[VoteProgressive]

10. Thank you so much.

[MadHound]

4. It depends on a number of things

Who is the subsidy going to, a small farmer vs. a corporate farmer.

Why is it being subsidized. I have no problem with some CRP programs that pay farmers to grow trees, revitalize the soil, etc.

As with so many other issues, you can't broadbrush on this one.

[ipfilter]

6. I highly recommend the documetary

King Corn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Corn_%28film%29

[VoteProgressive]

11. THAT is what got me interested. It seems like a waste of money. But....

the cost of food part made me wonder.

[gratuitous]

7. A well-administered program could be a good thing

Unfortunately, subsidies often turn into a cash machine for large-scale industrial farming. Subsidies can act as a buffer between farmers and the so-called free market, taking some of the risk out of the guesswork of farming (what are wheat prices going to look like six months from now?), and cushioning the effects of a bad weather year. Without proper administration and oversight, however, subsidy programs eventually slip their leashes, and become a free-for-all exploited by the folks more interested in gaming the system than in growing anything.

[old mark]

8. K&R I believe the original intent was good, but it has been so misused by the

rich and by huge corporate farm land owners that it has become perverted.

It should be eliminated, but I am not expecting action any time soon.

mark

[jpljr77]

9. In practice, it's terrible. In theory, it's the most important thing to our country.

There is nothing more important than a nation's access to food. Nothing. So ensuring there are extra-market incentives to farm is critical.

But the U.S. Gov't currently misapplies, and private corporations exploit, the subsidies. Still...you've got to have them.

[JackintheGreen]

13. Tax exemptions are also subsidies

and we end up with this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x577337

Same thing happened in NJ with former Eagle Jon Runyon. It's all a game for the rich to move our money to themselves. Subsidies have outlasted their need, by and large.

[flamin lib]

14. It depends on the subsidy.

As it is now the vast majority of $$ go to large agribusiness. Some of it even goes to corps that have almost nothing to do with agriculture.

I grew up on a small farm in S. Texas in the '50s. Dad raised 7 kids on 25 acres plus some rented land. Grew cotton, corn, alfalfa hay and swiss chard (for only one year, thank God!). He was paid to leave some land fallow and some crops were restricted to maintain pricing at market.

When he died I went through his tax returns. He began the spring at the local bank & trust with a loan to buy seed and fuel for the tractor. He finished the year by giving everything left over after expenses and our meager living back to the bank.

Were it not for the stable market price of his crops afforded by the subsidies and regulated crop sizes he would never have been able to get those loans in the spring.

He didn't get his GED until he was in his late 40s but after seeing his tax returns I've got to tell ya' he was one brilliant effin' businessman.

[Demeter]

15. It's a distortion of the market

and it distorts it against the home population, the farmers and the general world. It enriches wealthy people, paying them to do nothing--because all this money goes to agribusiness.

[Scuba]

16. Bad. Look at sugar farms in particular. Most $$$ goes to a few huge businesses. n/t

[Recursion]

17. Corporate welfare. Mostly goes to Monsanto, ADM, and ConAgra

It also rewards monoculture cereals and soy production over more sustainable practices.

[Uta]

18. One local example I'm well acquainted with

From a federal "water conservation" program, the public paid for irrigation development here in SE Idaho.

A piller of the community, a real-estate wheeler-dealer who dabbles in horses and sheep raising bought a field that had been planted with corn and irrigated by labor-intensive ditch and siphon method.
She got a free massive sprinkler irrigation circle put in courtesy of the tax-payers costing a hundred and ten grand. Absolutely free.
She grazed horses on the irrigation circle for a while, then tried to subdivide the irrigated field to sell as small acreage parcels for ranchettes.
The housing crisis caught her. The subdivision never got off the drawing board. The 110 K sprinkler sits un-used . Its barely visible, almost lost to view amid weeds as big as trees.
That field produces tumbleweeds for the entire county.

Not one pound of food was produced.
A wealthy real-estate hustler "farmer" got a hell of a deal. The public got screwed.

[Uta]

20. Another example "Sheep improvement incentives"

Some years sheep farmers (like me) are paid to retain ewe lambs for breeding, that is, not sell them, but retain them for breeding. We get a free check for every female lamb we winter over.
You fill out a form, tell them how many ewe lambs you have. Free money for each ewe lamb. $35 per head.
NO ONE EVER CHECKS. No one EVER drops by to see if you even own sheep.
I applied for (and recieved, no questions asked) a ewe lamb incentive check . When I was filling it out, I was told I might bas well inflate the numbers. Everyone does it. "They dont check, and if they did, you can always say the ewe lambs died."
(Weirdly enough, I stated my actual numbers and got about 400 bucks absolutely free)

Some years The "sheep improvement incentives" pay the sheep farmer to buy rams to "improving flock genetics". Farmer is given $150 per head to buy uncastrated ram lambs. For 150 bucks free money, WHY WOULD YOU CASTRATE ANYTHING?!
Heres how ya work this deal : I dont castrate any of my male lambs, even the crappy ugly sickly ones. My sheep-raising friend does the same.
At weaning time we swap sickly crappy uncastrated young rams. The feds write us each a check for 150 for each lamb we "buy" from one another.
Sweeeeet! eh?
In the long run, Retaining for breeding, every crooked-legged, poor-growing, scouring lamb born with testicles, is not so good for improving flock genetics.

[gratuitous]

21. And I'm guessing you would stop tomorrow

If an official from the Department of Agriculture stopped by today to review your paperwork and practices, and that of your neighbors. It's a funny thing how doling out assistance to the needy and deserving often turns into a banquet for the greedy and undeserving. Oversight is crucial.

[Uta]

22. Actually

My paperwork and practices are pretty darn good.

The ram-lamb swapping example I described as an illustration, was not my actual practice.
I wont take money to ruin my flock genetics.

But If the feds want to give me free money for doing what I'd be doing anyway, Yeah, what the hell. I'll take the check.
Its a horrible program, wasteful and ridiculous. Waste of taxpayer money, but Hell, I'll keep that 400 bucks out of the hands of some Republican. Would'nt you?

[Uta]

23. Wanna be a crime-buster?

Here is a farm subsidy data base. Each recipient is listed, along with details of their subsidy.
http://farm.ewg.org/search.php?fips=00000®ionname=UnitedStatesFarmSubsidySummary

Its organized by state and county. You can also search individual's names.
A lot of people who are not farmers get susidies.
Like business people. Politician, like ....congress member and Senators.
You can look up their take right here.
For example, here the page for ex-Senator "Farmer" Gordon Smith (R-OR)

http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?custnumber=A09417987

They're all in here, and most of em cheat.
It might not take much research to uncover improprieties.

[gratuitous]

25. Not particularly

But if there was proper oversight of the program, and inspectors were called to testify before Congress, it might (might, might, might) spell the end of programs that have outlived their usefulness or pare abuses down considerably. Automatic sunset clauses would also be useful, designed to end programs on a specific date without (1) a comprehensive review; and (2) airtight evidence that the program continued to work as designed.

Unfortunately, too many of these programs take on a life of their own, as bureaucrats and beneficiaries alike have an interest in the program continuing with minimal review. As it is, a sheep subsidy program that pays out $400 a year to various persons is practically too small to be noticed in a federal budget measured in 13 figures. So you're probably safe as houses.

[Uta]

27. Most recipients make a whole lot more than 400/year nt

[hfojvt]

30. thanks for some inside knowledge

and welcome to DU :hi:

[bemildred]

19. It's a racket. nt

[ParkieDem]

24. They are terrible, no matter what your point of view.

Farm subsidies are yet another depression-era relic whose time has long since passed.

As repeated on this board ad nauseum, most of these subsidies go to large agribusinesses (some of which are owned by politicians of both parties, mind you).

During the depression, we had deflation, which submarined farm prices to where farmers were better off letting their milk and other products spoil rather than take it to market. Meanwhile, people in the cities were starving to death.

That is no longer the case now. Agricultural production around the world is very efficient and mostly profitable. All farm subsidies do are (1) line the pockets of rich corporations, (2) make our food more expensive, and (3) make it difficult for truly poor farmers in developing countries to access markets in wealthier countries.

From a progressive's point of view, this is obviously terrible. It helps the rich and hurts the poor. From a true conservative, market-oriented point of view, it's just as bad, because it is a classic example of distorting the markets via government intervention.

[Modern_Matthew]

26. Watch Food Inc. They mainly go to huge millionaire farmers. Hurts the small farms. nt

[rucky]

28. They'd be great if they were used to help family farms grow food.

The kind that people eat.

[BobbyBoring]

29. Bad thing

Like any program, it's going to be abused. There's one type of subsidy used here on the Delmarva penninsula (and other places I'm sure) that pays farmers not to grow certain crops. I think it's a soil/nutrient conservation thing.

What happens is, they pay a farmer X dollars not to grow soybeans. So farmer doesn't grow soybeans that year, he plants corn instead. basically, the farmer is double dipping. he's getting government (our) money not to grow beans and he's getting $ from his corn sales. Nest year, they pay him not to grow corn so he grows beans again.

I expect the abuse to get worse since I just heard they're doing away with our extension service due to "Budget constraints".