Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm

2006 +

Because, it's still relevant that's why. With the ongoing #Tariff Wars and mamsy pamsy nitpicking, I wanted to find out more about what types of subsidies are given to support farming in America, how much and why it's failing so badly.

www.washingtonpost.com...

EL CAMPO, Tex. -- Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years. Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice.

Matthews is not alone. Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post. "I don't agree with the government's policy," said Matthews, who wanted to give the money back but was told it would just go to other landowners. "They give all of this money to landowners who don't even farm, while real farmers can't afford to get started. It's wrong."

This from 2013 -

www.washingtonpost.com...
The U.S. has few farmers. So why does Congress love farm subsidies?

This week, House Republicans passed a rather unusual farm bill. There was no money for food stamps for the poor, a program that typically makes up the bulk of these bills. But the House did manage to pass billions in subsidies for farmers and agribusinesses.

Instead, House Republicans decided to focus solely on passing a package of subsidies for farmers and agribusinesses worth about $195 billion over the next 10 years. (The final vote was 216 to 208.)

Ideology probably can't explain this vote — at least not entirely. Most outside conservative groups were aghast at the crop insurance and commodity supports, which will cost taxpayers some $195 billion over 10 years. Yet House Republicans actually made the farm aid more generous — by adding a new shallow loss income entitlement program, tossing in new protections for sugar production and ensuring that price supports for crops don't sunset in 2018.

This raises a question: Why are lawmakers so willing to vote for farm subsidies — even lawmakers who usually oppose government spending? After all, only a small fraction of the U.S. population even farms anymore.

Which leads to yet another unanswered question: What other unnecessary billions of tax payers $ is going to stuff like this?

originally posted by: BotheLumberJack
2006 +

Because, it's still relevant that's why. With the ongoing #Tariff Wars and mamsy pamsy nitpicking, I wanted to find out more about what types of subsidies are given to support farming in America, how much and why it's failing so badly.

www.washingtonpost.com...

EL CAMPO, Tex. -- Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years. Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice.

Matthews is not alone. Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post. "I don't agree with the government's policy," said Matthews, who wanted to give the money back but was told it would just go to other landowners. "They give all of this money to landowners who don't even farm, while real farmers can't afford to get started. It's wrong."

This from 2013 -

www.washingtonpost.com...
The U.S. has few farmers. So why does Congress love farm subsidies?

This week, House Republicans passed a rather unusual farm bill. There was no money for food stamps for the poor, a program that typically makes up the bulk of these bills. But the House did manage to pass billions in subsidies for farmers and agribusinesses.

Instead, House Republicans decided to focus solely on passing a package of subsidies for farmers and agribusinesses worth about $195 billion over the next 10 years. (The final vote was 216 to 208.)

Ideology probably can't explain this vote — at least not entirely. Most outside conservative groups were aghast at the crop insurance and commodity supports, which will cost taxpayers some $195 billion over 10 years. Yet House Republicans actually made the farm aid more generous — by adding a new shallow loss income entitlement program, tossing in new protections for sugar production and ensuring that price supports for crops don't sunset in 2018.

This raises a question: Why are lawmakers so willing to vote for farm subsidies — even lawmakers who usually oppose government spending? After all, only a small fraction of the U.S. population even farms anymore.

Which leads to yet another unanswered question: What other unnecessary billions of tax payers $ is going to stuff like this?

special interest... farmers get used to accepting the subsidies and then if you try to cut it off, the industry will go apesh*t. The politicians from those areas support it because the industry helps get them elected.

I don't think the feds should be subsidizing any industry... period.

Yup, that sounds like our Govt nonsense in action.

The government does have some role to ensure food security. All these payments are basically ransom to make sure the farmers do not take Americans hostage with very high food prices by limiting supply. Why not just produce less and have prices much higher, leading to more profit for less work? Without these government guarantees farmers will do just this.

of course not, which is why the government needs to stop taxing us and giving our money away to people who don't deserve it

then the farmers can raise prices and we can afford to pay it and walla everything works correctly

It's the corporate farms that get the most subsidy; Corporate welfare. Not the small farmers....

www.heritage.org...


How do you feel about taxpayer subsidies to Oil companies that already show obscene profits?


The corporate oligarchy will continue because they have the lobbyist, spend the most on their chosen politicians with campaign contributions and then give the politicians sweet paid board positions when they retire.

Trump isn't going to change any of this and he gave the Corps additional tax breaks. He's a businessman remember?

If these subsidies went to help people who are farming to keep their ability to farm going, maybe we would do better. Farmers live on the edge of bankruptsy year after year, one bad year can wipe out all their capital. We should be helping people to grow things, not to keep them from growing things.

Big corporate farmers and producers of eggs and milk get most of the subsidies out there, rarely does a small farmer get anything and if they do it is usually for something they do not need.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: BotheLumberJack
2006 +

Because, it's still relevant that's why. With the ongoing #Tariff Wars and mamsy pamsy nitpicking, I wanted to find out more about what types of subsidies are given to support farming in America, how much and why it's failing so badly.

www.washingtonpost.com...

EL CAMPO, Tex. -- Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years. Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice.

Matthews is not alone. Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post. "I don't agree with the government's policy," said Matthews, who wanted to give the money back but was told it would just go to other landowners. "They give all of this money to landowners who don't even farm, while real farmers can't afford to get started. It's wrong."

This from 2013 -

www.washingtonpost.com...
The U.S. has few farmers. So why does Congress love farm subsidies?

This week, House Republicans passed a rather unusual farm bill. There was no money for food stamps for the poor, a program that typically makes up the bulk of these bills. But the House did manage to pass billions in subsidies for farmers and agribusinesses.

Instead, House Republicans decided to focus solely on passing a package of subsidies for farmers and agribusinesses worth about $195 billion over the next 10 years. (The final vote was 216 to 208.)

Ideology probably can't explain this vote — at least not entirely. Most outside conservative groups were aghast at the crop insurance and commodity supports, which will cost taxpayers some $195 billion over 10 years. Yet House Republicans actually made the farm aid more generous — by adding a new shallow loss income entitlement program, tossing in new protections for sugar production and ensuring that price supports for crops don't sunset in 2018.

This raises a question: Why are lawmakers so willing to vote for farm subsidies — even lawmakers who usually oppose government spending? After all, only a small fraction of the U.S. population even farms anymore.

Which leads to yet another unanswered question: What other unnecessary billions of tax payers $ is going to stuff like this?

special interest... farmers get used to accepting the subsidies and then if you try to cut it off, the industry will go apesh*t. The politicians from those areas support it because the industry helps get them elected.

I don't think the feds should be subsidizing any industry... period.

No, they should not. I think the industry went apesh*t several decades ago though, we're just getting wind of it now.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
The government does have some role to ensure food security. All these payments are basically ransom to make sure the farmers do not take Americans hostage with very high food prices by limiting supply. Why not just produce less and have prices much higher, leading to more profit for less work? Without these government guarantees farmers will do just this.

It's getting rather messy, and no one is willing to clean up the mess, except maybe Trump. I can see him doing something about it. No one else has in decades. But prices in the USofA are far higher than some other Westernized Nations by far. And food wastage is sad, on a National level.

originally posted by: toysforadults
of course not, which is why the government needs to stop taxing us and giving our money away to people who don't deserve it

then the farmers can raise prices and we can afford to pay it and walla everything works correctly

I think People should be pissed at the ones running the Circus rather than the ones who can't afford to feed their families. Don't you?

a reply to: rickymouse

The problem is that not enough big mouths care enough to do anything about it. They'd rather attack Trump or run down the street naked throwing roses at people while shouting #NotMe

All the poor me farmers who I used to deal with, the sky is falling every year with them, live in a nice brick home, pool in the back yard, toys in the garage and drive a brand new 4x4 pick em up pickup truck every year, poor farmers, bless their hearts...

a reply to: 38181

Now we know. I'd like to know what else the Zillion Dollar Tax Payer Debt is going towards. 50 million towards Fake Clown School for fallen Dem Political idealists? Or maybe Trigger Academy 101. I'm fairly sure a lot of that goes towards pool parties for the Billionaires when they need a month off so they can dance around wearing animal costumes and deer heads.

a reply to: BotheLumberJack

He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years. Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice.

That comes out to a little over $100 a month. I bet this guy didn't even know, or really care about his subsidy when he bought the 18 acre plot. I'm sure it hardly makes a difference to this guy's finances. But, $100 buys a lot of food for a family in need. It adds up, this government misdirection of funds.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It is, yeah. I've read that many many farmers don't even collect subsidies, like you said, they probably don't know about it. There's got to be a huge left over surplus, and then just owning land is enough to make anyone want to buy a plot. But in the 'billions'. That's highway robbery..

a reply to: BotheLumberJack
Good questions!

However, as a non-farming farm owner I must point out that if Mr. Matthews didn't want his direct payment subsidy, he shouldn't have applied for it. The USDA doesn't send anyone money without having about half a boxcar full of paperwork being turned in to them.

Just registering your name as the owner of a farm brings volumes of pamphlets from the USDA with all the programs for which you can apply. Same with the state Ag Dept.

The only direct payments that I as a non-farming farm owner receive are when crops fail due to weather conditions or we've done some significantly expensive land improvements. That's because those are the only programs for which I've bothered to fill out the paperwork to get matching funds. My farmer is old-school, he'd rather just do the right thing and absorb the costs than to send in reams of paper to prove to some bureaucrat that he's a good farmer.

One of the things I hope Trump can do when he's slashing regulations is to change some of the stupid stuff the USDA adopted under the Obama administration. For example, previously when I signed a power of attorney over farming to my farmer, that power of attorney was good until I revoked it. About two years into the Obama administration the rules changed and now my farmer is required to obtain new documents each year from each of his landowners. Then, a couple of years after that change, another one requires me to present my original deed at the local USDA when I turn in the power of attorney in person. Several of his landowners don't even live in our state! It is absolutely insane.

He farms thousands of acres, acres that used to be farmed by 23 different families. He has to have a series of different "plans" for each individual farm. We have a waterways plan, a crop rotation plan, a noxious weed eradication plan, a woodland plan, a "sharing with wildlife" plan and I'm sure there are others. Those are usually five to ten-year plans but there is paperwork yearly to document that he's following his plans. I understand why farmers are leaving the business.

Yes, he lives in a nice house and drives a nice truck but he also has two other businesses that support his farming habit. I don't know many farmers that don't have a side-line business of some kind. Most importantly to me is that he treats my land like it was his own, attempting to nurture it rather than manage it---a quality that no government bureaucrat could code into their computer.

a reply to: diggindirt

Still reading your reply and thanks! I'll respond to it in a sec.

If people that own land, don't farm.. what do you do with it? Is it there to safeguard for future Gov 'unbenownst to the land owners', to take later on for I don't know, .. for the sake of it i'll toss in 'NWO' camps. I'm not really an expert in this area, so all I can do is speculate and imagine.

a reply to: diggindirt

One of the things I hope Trump can do when he's slashing regulations is to change some of the stupid stuff the USDA adopted under the Obama administration.

I hope so too.

I've found thus far articles like this. www.theguardian.com...

American farmers worry they'll pay the price of Trump's trade war. The US agriculture industry, often the first to feel the hit of trade disputes, is bracing itself as nations threaten to retaliate

Should people in America be worried about Trump or should the perps be called out one by one for creating this dastardly scenario to begin with?

a reply to: diggindirt

However, as a non-farming farm owner I must point out that if Mr. Matthews didn't want his direct payment subsidy, he shouldn't have applied for it. The USDA doesn't send anyone money without having about half a boxcar full of paperwork being turned in to them.

I believe that! I also believe some accountant or legal assistant is finding "whatever" to justify their salary!

And this is how you laundry your money successfully to spend in black ops and secret projects.