Now
Fair and Breezy
41°
High
55°
Low
26°

Time to rid waste from farm subsidies

Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Monday, Jul 10, 2006 - 12:11:35 am CDT

Members of Congress who represent farm states better start cleaning up the farm subsidy programs, or someone else is going to do it for them.

Rules for farm subsidies are too loosely written. Enforcement to make sure subsidies are used for worthwhile purposes is too lax.

The latest revelations of abuse were turned up by the Washington Post, which reported that in the past five years $1.2 billion in direct farm payments has gone to people who don’t even farm.

Even in farm country, jaws surely should drop at the newspaper’s findings. Among other things, the Post told of suburban homeowners who get annual checks because their property once grew crops. Asphalt contractor Donald R. Mathews of El Campo, Texas, tried to give his $1,300 yearly check back. The government told him it would just go to other landowners. “I don’t agree with the government’s policy,” Matthews told the Post. “They give all this money to landowners who don’t even farm, while real farmers can’t afford to get started. It’s wrong.”

The wasteful program got its start in the Freedom to Farm Act of 1996, when Congress was trying to wean farmers from subsidies. The direct payments were supposed to be temporary.

Ten years later the subsidies are still here and growing. Some of the most outrageous examples are from the so-called Texas rice belt, where farmland has been converted to acreages. Developers even advertise the availability of farm aid to entice buyers.

That’s a long way from where farm subsidies started in the Depression era, as a way to save the family farm.

Belatedly, some of the culprits who helped create the program are beginning to realize that it has gone massively awry. Sometimes property owners evict tenant farmers and just collect the aid. “This was an unintended consequence of the farm bill,” former Rep. Charles W. Stenholm of Texas told the Post. “Instead of maintaining a rice industry in Texas, we basically contributed to its demise.”

Chuck Hassebrook of the Center for Rural Affairs has been hammering on the same point for several years now, calling for caps on subsidies, stricter rules and better enforcement.

Last year the government handed out $25 billion in farm subsidies, “almost 50 percent more than the amount it pays to families receiving welfare,” the Post noted pointedly.

There’s still a need in America to provide a safety net for farmers. But if members of Congress from farm states want to preserve legitimate aid programs, they need to start ridding the system of waste and abuse. The day that farm states could rely on an appeal to “save the family farm” are receding into history.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Editorial Main > Back to Top of Story

All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Max wrote on July 10, 2006 12:45 am:
" Why fix what's not broken? The Doha Rounds are a prime example of international interference with our domestic agricultural welfare program. If we wish to succeed in the international market, we have to lie, cheat, and steal our way to the top. Don't break this advantage for our ag producers now. Reform will only lead to giving up U.S. advantage. "

Judy Cantrell wrote on July 10, 2006 7:08 am:
" I'm glad the Jounral/Star picked up on this excellent series from the Washington Post. "

todd wrote on July 10, 2006 9:40 am:
" 3rd district congressional candidate Adrian Smith said in a radio interview posted on his campaign website that one of the first things he will do in Congress is create a subsidy (gov handout) for chicory producers! Guess who the only producer of chicory is in BOTH North and South America: DAVE HERGERT!!! And he calls himself a conservative...aww the waste of taxpayer dollars. "

WAPost 2 wrote on July 10, 2006 10:49 am:
" Wouldn't be great if we could get the farming sector off of welfare so other entitlement programs could be evaluated? When global markets are not free , but are regulated through the price fixing subsidies allow...economic disparity increases and breeds discont and terrorists. Why is the governor partnering with a dictator and not a different democracy for ag trade? "

Luke wrote on July 10, 2006 12:51 pm:
" Its time we end welfare for farmers entirely. "

Tom wrote on July 10, 2006 2:23 pm:
" We had a choice of selling our farms or existing. Without the "welfare" for farmers we probably would have gone bankrupt, as many in my area did. We sold the farms and chose to exist in Lincoln. What a change!! Many farmers sold and moved to other states to find industry work and lived a much happier life. A change in Nebraska only drives you further in the hole because of taxes. "

Go wrote on July 10, 2006 3:03 pm:
" Little wonder farmers get no where with Hagel who knows nothing about farming out at Broken Bow being EXECUTIVE. Want that for your President next??? Maybe he can go back to D C and get some pointers for Dick Lugar. Now he's the one who should be President.l "

Farming's Left! wrote on July 10, 2006 6:00 pm:
" What would Wakefield, Lexington and Harvard be without farming? Maybe Central America or Central Nebraska? "

Hoooooooola? wrote on July 10, 2006 6:30 pm:
" Subsidy or/and cheap migrant labor? Whay would Presient Lincoln do? African slaves were first captured and transported, legally into the country...as cheap labor...Have we come full circle where cheap "slave labor" first must be "legal"...or transported out of the country if illegal? Long gone are farms of memory, the subsidy program is no longer relevant? "

PaulsonRestructure? wrote on July 10, 2006 9:37 pm:
" Tom has a good point. Without subsidies bankrupt land would be available. maybe for the new homsteaders? The migrant workers might work for minimum wage. With a new Treasury Secretary who knows the in and outs of mergers a bigger America might resolve the border andimmigration issue. Forget Ag subsidies, is it time for markets and workers to compete? "

Richard wrote on July 10, 2006 11:32 pm:
" I am old enough to remember the days when almost every farm raised their own chickens for eggs & meat. Several dairy cows were kept for milk, cheese and cream. The cream surplus was usually sold for cash at the local creamery and the skim milk left over after family use was fed to hogs. A few dozen eggs were usually sold at the creamery when the cream was taken into town. On our farm we would butcher a couple hogs every year for our meat and if we were lucky and had a good wheat crop we might butcher one of the beef herd. Unless the wheat crop was really good the only cash money during the year was the check from the creamery and any profit from the few hogs and beeves sold during the year. Because of strict sanitation laws a farm operation like that would no longer be possible. Ask any dairy farmer about what kind of investment he has in his equipment and keep in mind that it costs almost as much to clean up a milking parlor that milks 2 cows as it does to clean up after a 200 head operation. Efficiency is the name of the game in farming now. The family farm as we knew it 50 years ago will never be seen again barring some kind of nuclear or biological disaster. "

Hjalmer wrote on July 12, 2006 6:43 am:
" The point is these programs used to work pretty well and kept a population base and tax base functioning in rural America. When the Republicans pushed through this "Freedom to Farm" Act, Sen. Exon (D) called it the Freedom to Fail Act and that's about the way it's worked out. It has served to speed consolidation of agriculture and increased the speed of out-migration from rural Nebraska. Now the real issue. As rural America's tax base disappears, guess who's going to have to pay the bills to maintain essential services and infrastructure out there? Yup, metro Omaha and Lincoln 'cause you'll be the only ones with a functioning economic base. "