What are people's opinions on Farm Subsidies?

[liberalpragmatist]

As Matt Yglesias pointed out on his blog yesterday, all the vitriol and controversy over the "free trade" v. "fair trade," tends to obsure the actual controversies. One of the biggest is farm subsidies.

I'm curious what other DU'ers think about farm subsidies? I'd like to learn more about the issue. I lean towards phasing them out as they seem incredibly unfair to third-world farmers and markets and are a big source of global poverty. Plus, a lot of their benefits go to big agrobusiness. At the same time, I recognize that it would probably cause a lot of problems for US farmers.

What are some proposals for this? If anybody could direct me links from think tanks, periodicals that present possibilities, I would be very interested. Thanks!

[castiron]

1. They need to go, in the case of big agri-business.

My opinion comes from a conviction that small, sustainable farming will be our future and I'm opposed to many of big-ag's practices.

[jwirr]

2. I am a farm state girl. I agree that they should not go to

huge agribiz farmers.


BUT I also do not want our food sources outsourced. I want each state to have the ability to provide their own food in case of emergencies - such as peak oil, etc. We cannot do this if we start to import all our foods. Our farms will go the way of our manufacturing - to labor intensive countries. I also am in favor of those poor countries using the food they grow to feed their own people - I assumed that was what debt forgiveness was all about.

[Greyskye]

3. What needs to go is tobacco subsidies!

Why we are subsidizing cancer is just one of those :wtf: things as far as I'm concerned!

[MercutioATC]

4. I grew up on a small dairy farm. End the subsidies.

Sure, small farms will die. That's the natural progression...they're simply not economically viable any more. Those that cater to specialty products like organic meat/milk/produce will be around a little while longer, but they just can't compete.

Keeping them artificially "alive" doesn't make sense to me.

[castiron]

7. very few organic small farms are subsidized

Fastest growing farming sector is the small organic farm. They are more and more economically viable.

[MercutioATC]

10. Yeah, I know. I wasn't clear.

I think it's only a matter of time before big ag takes over the organic market, too (nothing to do with subsidies, more a comment on the long-term viability of the small farm).

[rfranklin]

5. subsidies go mostly to big business according to...

the Heritage Foundation--

Still at the Federal Trough: Farm Subsidies for the Rich and Famous Shattered Records in 2001
by Brian Riedl
Backgrounder #1542


April 30, 2002 | |

Members of Congress who are poised to spend at least $171 billion on direct farm subsidies over the next decade would be wise to examine newly released statistics detailing who actually receives these subsidies. In 2001, Fortune 500 companies and large agribusinesses shattered previous farm subsidy records, while small family farmers saw their share of the subsidy pie shrink.

These subsidy programs tax working Americans to award millions to millionaires and provide profitable corporate farms with money that has been used to buy out family farms. The current farm bills1 would provide even greater subsidies for large farmers, costing the average household $4,400 over the next 10 years, while facilitating increased consolidation and buyouts in the agricultural industry.2
--snip--
the top 10 percent of recipients--most of whom earn over $250,000 annually--received 73 percent of all farm subsidies in 2001.4 This figure represents an increase above the 67 percent of all farm subsidies that they received between 1996 and 2000....

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/BG1542.cfm

[Elwood P Dowd]

6. You should see the list of millionaires who receive huge checks

It's not just the big agribusinesses, you see doctors, lawyers, and others taking advantage. There is a site somewhere that has the list of all those receiving checks. Will see if I can find it.

Legitimate family farmers should be the only ones receiving help.

[misternormal]

8. Big Agri-business

should get none of the subsidies... To think that if American farmers were allowed to grow crops and make a decent living at it, starvation could be literally wiped out. But then there is little money in it I guess.

[creeksneakers2]

9. There's a huge budget deficit

If Democrats don't show the willingness to cut at least a few things they'll look like reckless spenders and part of the problem. Agriculture isn't at the top of the list for things to go but it ought to be on the list.

[fed-up]

11. End subsidies to the big agrobusinesses-they are killing small farmers

I went to a meeting of 100 rice farmers here in California last year. The parking lot was full of newer 30K-50K? white trucks.

My boyfriend is an small organic farmer. He drives a 20 year old van to bring his produce to the farmer's markets. He also works at least 60-70 hours a week.

Something is wrong with this picture...

here is a break down by state/farmer of subsidies
http://www.ewg.org/farm/region.php?fips=06000

Here is an article on tax deductions for those white trucks whether or not they are using for business purposes

http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/whitepapers/SUVtaxbreak.htm

EFFECTS
These changes to the tax code, which were originally intended to spur capital investments by farmers and small businesses that rely on heavier vehicles, have made the purchase of heavy SUVs extremely lucrative for any small business owner, whether or not the vehicle is necessary in their work. It has raised the deduction cap to $100,000 for small businesses, while retaining all other aspects of the tax cut. This makes the purchase of at least 55 large SUVs, passenger vans, and trucks-all priced under $100,000-completely deductible in the first year.

As a result, Hummer sales, and SUV sales in general, have skyrocketed and this trend has continued with the passage of the Jobs and Growth Act.10 This has raised a number of important questions about the effect of this provision. For one, this is another tax break that primarily benefits the rich. Skip Barnett, who owns a hummer dealership in Atlanta, said that most of his buyers are small-business owners with incomes of over $200,000.11 The tax break has encouraged people from all lines of work, including real-estate agents, lawyers, consultants, and many others-for whom this provision was never intended-to purchase a luxury SUV instead of a luxury automobile, which is not eligible for the same deductions. Assuming that the average SUV buyer pays 35% on income taxes, and that the average SUV costs $40,000 (all of which is now deductible), this will cost the treasury an estimated $14,000 per taxpayer that takes the deduction, up from an average of $11,060 before the cap was increased to $100,000. For every 100,000 taxpayers that take advantage of this loophole, it will cost the treasury an estimated $1.4 billion!

[AirAmFan]

12. IMO, US farm subsidies are almost pure corporate welfare now,

though they were brilliant economics seventy years ago when FDR's brain trust came up with them to help end the Great Depression.

Since then, most of the annual subsidy paid to various kinds of farming has been capitalized into the value of farmland. People who now own and farm land paid much higher prices for it than they should have. They would bear the steep decline in value that would result from terminating corporate welfare now, without some policy mechanism to ease that loss for small farmers. On the other hand, many more people are "pretend" farmers, who get to have huge estates without paying their fair shares of property taxes, because of special rates and exemptions for those classified by the state as farmers.

Another wrinkle is that sudden elimination of farm subsidies at the edges of populated areas would increase development sprawl without policy interventions to prevent sprawl.

IMO, policies to end this segment of corporate welfare should be ruthless with large landowners, especially those who merely rent land to actual farmers, and might include government buyouts and resettlement or job retraining for lower-income people who actually are working full-time as farmers. But the huge size of the subsidy, tens of billions of dollars a year, pays for plenty of kickbacks to politicians for protection of the status quo, and makes substantial change in agriculture quite unlikely.

[OneBlueSky]

13. family farms, yes . . . corporate "agriculture", no . . . n/t

.

[rfkrfk]

14. farm subsidies are a ripoff of the poor

farm subsidies always increse the price of food

consider sugar subsidies in Europe
European farmers get {some guesswork here} 30 cents /lb.
the poor pay that, plus the usual markups.
world price is 11 cents.
{technically, this might be better called a tarrif,
but you get the idea}

edit, adding the following.

Why is it done that way?
answer, no 'out of pocket' expenses for the gov't,
it is easier to steal from the poor with higher prices,
than it is to collect taxes to give to the rich

[B Calm]

15. When are we going to have working poor subsidies?

[rfkrfk]

16. politically impossible, any help for the poor, is money not going

to farmers.

farmers won't allow it

[B Calm]

18. Its not just crop subsidies either. You need a new drainage ditch

across that cornfield, don't fret, Uncle Sam will buy you one!!

[B Calm]

19. Hell one of my neighbors had a 5 acre pond built and paid for by us.

Of course it was to protect land erosion, ha ha ha...

[rfkrfk]

20. OTOH, without subsidies, no one would raise EMUs n/t

[annabanana]

17. Should be severly means tested.

Conagra etc. shouldn't get a damn dime, but smaller farms should. I don't want the bulk of our food supply to rely on big travel distances, or the food safety laws of other countries.