MyDD :: Farm Payment Database, Revisited

Farm Payment Database, Revisited

by Dan Owens, Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 12:51:10 AM EST

Dan Owens is a Rural Policy Organizer at the Center for Rural Affairs in Lyons, Nebraska. This is part of Farm Bill blogging.

The big news this week in the farm bill debate was the release of Environmental Working Group's new farm subsidy database, and rightfully so. Yet again we were reminded of the vital need for strong, effective farm program payment limitations. Earlier this week I wrote about the King of Farm Programs, Maurice Wilder. The King received $3,217,158 in farm program payments from 2003 to 2005. But it's important to remember that not everyone is like The King.

There are many family farmers who get upset every time the EWG database is in the headlines. And one of them posted an excellent comment on EWG's own blog, Mulch. It is reprinted, unedited, in full here:

Mr. Cook,

You forgot to state that also in this new database is the average income in the area and how many children are in poverty. You have it on my database page. I am a 25 year old farmer that started farming corn and soybeans at age 19. Not with Dad or family or anyone. I have an established business now but I own no real estate. Equipment payments consume most of my income. My equipment loan would be the same as a new business start-up loan to all you non-farm people.

I do not live a life of luxury, I work hard to keep the lifestyle I have. Can you please put on my database page that I employ the father of two poverty stricken kids. I give him a paycheck, food, money for the kids'; Christmas. I also can't control where that paycheck gets spent. I also utilize no-till practices and grow food-grade white corn. Yes, remember farmers grow food, not grocery stores. So if you think I make $50K a year and ignore the 5,900 kids in poverty in my area you are wrong. So could you please post the information I gave you next to my name in your database. I don't care if the world knows how much subsidy payments I have received. I just don't like the personal attack on every subsidy recipient you have done.

Respectfully,

Adam Michael Betzer Sleeth

I love this comment, and it goes to the heart of the issues around progressive farm bill reform. Yes, farm programs have serious effects that should be acknowledged, and if you ask me unlimited farm subsidy checks are just all-around evil.

But farm programs play an important role in rural America and within the agricultural economy, and the vast majority of farmers are decent, hardworking people who are playing with the hand they're dealt.

Quite frankly, one of the reasons farm programs get such a bad rap overall is that you can track the payments back to individuals (most of the time). It's a lot harder to track back the benefits of all the other tax credits and subsidies that the government gives out. Go take a look at the big energy bill the Senate is debating right now - the whole damn thing appears to be a vast collection of corporate subsidies, even if some of those subsidies are for things we should support, such as wind energy. ExxonMobil receives enormous tax credits for oil exploration, and Boeing receives sweetheart government backed financing deals from the Export-Import bank. Government subsidy examples are endless, and those who think farm programs are just the worst example of corporate welfare ever should think again.

In my post earlier this week, I wrote:

Every time EWG updates their database, big commodity groups claim that EWG somehow "distorts" the data for its own purposes.... And when you hear organizations whine about how the King is an aberration, a lone example of farm programs gone bad, don't believe it.

I stand by those statements. I believe that the vast majority of comments printed in the media are from those big organizations that support unlimited farm program checks, like the 3.2 million dollars Maurice Wilder has collected. As far as I am concerned, those organizations do not represent family farmers, the vast majority of which support effective farm program payment limits.

When farmers like Adam Sleeth speaks up, everyone should listen. That includes people out in rural America and people (usually concentrated in Washington, DC) who endlessly criticize farm programs without recognizing the farmers who contribute so much to this country. That farm program check Adam receives is doing a lot more good for this world than both Maurice Wilder's million dollar checks or tax credits for Exxon.

Tags: Farm Bill, Rural, Agriculture (all tags)

Permalink :: 4 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Farm Payment Database, Revisited (none / 0)

Can we please just limit payments to 200k/year and be done with it? It's amazing the inertia on this one aspect of the farm bill.

by adamterando on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 01:47:32 AM EST

Re: Farm Payment Database, Revisited (2.50 / 2)

That would be nice, for sure. I have to admit there are times I get tired of writing about payment limits. In my mind, putting a limit on and being done with it would be wonderful. Then we could move on to the real business of strengthening rural communities, which was the original goal of farm programs way back in the 1930s. All of the media basically get focused on three parts of the farm bill- food stamps, farm programs, and conservation. There are a lot of other parts of the farm bill that are just as important to rural America as the "big three". Maybe my next blog post will be on those.

Dan Owens works for the Center for Rural Affairs. Read more at the Blog for Rural America.

by Dan Owens on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 01:57:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Farm Payment Database, Revisited (none / 0)

Btw, I haven't been following this lately as much as I should be. If you had to give the new bill a grade (based on what's been proposed so far) what would you give it?

by adamterando on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 01:48:52 AM EST

Re: Farm Payment Database, Revisited (none / 0)

I would give it a "C-". It kind of depends on how you look at it, I suppose. Right now all we have to go on is what has come out of the House, and not many people thought that the House Ag Committee would embrace seriously progressive reform of the farm bill. And the House has not gotten into the contentious issues- that will happen next week, in full committee. You'll definitely see some fireworks then, and there will be a lot to blog about, for sure. Further, Peterson is proposing an amendment tactic to really screw over the reform proposals that are expected to be offered on the floor, and that will draw some serious heat as well. I wrote about that today on our blog, www.cfra.org/blog.

Senator Harkin's farm bill proposal is supposed to come out in the next couple of weeks, and it will almost certainly be more progressive than the House one.

The primary roadblock to a better farm bill right now is the lack of money. Or, more specifically, there are many good ideas out there that need funding, but committee members have not been willing to make tough choices. Those tough choices may or may not happen in full committee. For a variety of reasons, the farm bill budget is relatively small. Unfortunately, existing programs, good or bad, almost always get the same level of funding (or very close) so any new programs must find new money, and there is no new money to be had.

Then there are the issues like payment limits, which don't cost any money at all (and would actually save money). Antitrust issues would be another example. Those are often even tougher fights than finding funding for programs, because they go right to the heart of farm program ideology.

Dan Owens works for the Center for Rural Affairs. Read more at the Blog for Rural America.

by Dan Owens on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 02:13:00 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.