Katie O'Connell Focusing points of the 2014 Farm Bill range from renewable energy and energy efficiency to trade and foreign agriculture, and even specialty crops and organics (USDA 2014). One thing Congress forgot to tie down, however, is the definition of a farmer. By defining exactly who constitutes as a farmer Congress would have picked out all those people who are simply part of business partnerships, wealthy executives, and even celebrities who aren’t actually actively engaged in the farming process. At the moment these tag-a-longs are reaping the benefits of tax cuts such as farming subsidies and crop insurance. These benefits are put in place in order to help farm families when crop prices or farm revenues are low, or to support risk management strategies incase of natural disasters (Tomson 2015). This seems more reasonable to me than the fixed amount of money that farmers previously automatically received for every acre of land. Even if there were no crops on the land and no matter what weather conditions occurred that year, good or bad, farmers would get their direct cash payment. Both Republicans and Democrats agreed to nix direct payments and continue to condone federally subsidized crop insurance (Dayen 2014). It makes sense for farm families to receive these precautions as a safety net, but it is unexplainable why others such as billionaires Paul Allen, Leonard Lauder, and Penny Pritzker receive a farming safety net as well as seen on the Forbes Billionaire list (Sciammacco 2013). Furthermore, insurance companies are also winning out as they are paid more than a billion in admistrative expenses . Farmers are also being compensated when the price of certain crops such as corn and soy drop. This is called Price Loss Coverage. Also, with Agriculture Risk Coverage, if they experience any loss lower than their deductible, the insurance company will close the gap (Dayen 2014). In these ways, Farmers are being compensated for basically almost any loss that occurs. Congress did attempt to add a measure to the Farm Bill that would cap the amount of people who qualify for payments. This measure was planned to put a ceiling of $250,000 for a farmer and spouse and $125, 000 per year for a single “farm manager” of choice. Unfortunately the amendment was rejected and Congress lost the opportunity to cut federal spending by $387 million over the next ten years (Tomson 2015). However, I think there was another reason the measure to cap payments was not added. As seen in the chart below, Agribusiness has made major contributions to federal candidates. Over the past two decades, $624.5 million has been spent and almost 70% of the contributions have gone to Republican candidates (Vendituoli 2013). These contributions may have been the determining factor that ended up swaying Congress to exclude the cap and leave the responsibility of defining a farmer in the hands of the USDA. It is safe to say that Republicans and Democrats alike may have referred to the saying “don’t bite the hand that feeds you” and therefore backed off on their pressure to mess with payments to agribusiness. On the other hand, Congress made a controversial decision to decrease the amount put into food stamps by 1% or $8.7 billion over the next ten years (Dayen 2014). In this way, money from taxpayers is being taken from helping poor people eat and being shifted right back into the hands of wealthy farmers. Although the USDA has no control over the decision to cut food stamps, it does look to reform the seemingly endless flow of money to farmers by defining who is a farmer. This definition has not been made yet, but is next on the list of the 450 actions required by legislation. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack states that the definition will probably only end up effecting 1-2% of farmers (Tomson 2015). In an video interview with politico Vilsack notes that small farmers and farm families will still receive the safety net that has always been there for them while rich business owners connected to farming will understandable be the ones cut off. Just like with anything new, there will be both positive and negative outcomes to the implementation of everything in the 2014 Farm Bill and the USDA’s definition. There will always be room for adjustment and change in the future whether it be to get rid of farm subsidies and crop insurance all together or to put more support back into food stamps. As of now, all “farmers” will continue to be paid to get food on the table of Americans and hungry people everywhere. Until there is another way to guarantee the protection of their farms throughout all conditions, taxpayers will continue to help subsidize crop insurance costs. |
5 Comments
Libby Leyden-Sussler
2/19/2015 07:33:12 am
Until reading this blog I was not too familiar with the farm bill. This blog was informative and and laid out the key points and explains why this bill is important. I think people tend to not think of farming as such a key issue in today's society but is without doubt very crucial.
Reply
Dylan Faber 001136901
2/19/2015 11:50:40 pm
This is a very well thought out blog post and it made me think about what the farming industry in the USA would look like if the government was not involved. If the safeguards the government uses were removed it could lead to over production and the agrarian society in America dating back to the countries founders could become an unfeasible way to make a living due to over supply and not enough demand to hold prices steady. The government certainly walks a straight and narrow line when it comes to farm subsidies and regulation. It is important to note that if the billionaire farm owners were not subsidized in some way, would they begin hiring people to farm on the land they own and cause a problem of overproduction and low demand? What other options does the United States have to increase demand? Is it worth removing some restrictions through NAFTA and other treaties to allow farmers to be as productive as possible and govern the farming industry laissez faire style?
Reply
Isabel Jordan
2/20/2015 01:27:45 am
I really appreciated reading this post on the Farm Bill. I think that there are many ways that we can all find something in the farming industry which seems so disconnected from our everyday lives and apply it to our real world, making it relevant. One question this post did make me think of is what type of farming or farmers actually receive the subsidies? Is it majority grains and soy, or does that include vegetables and fruits as well? When I go into the super market it's clear to identify that my $2 box of cereal is being subsidized and my $3 head of organic broccoli is not. Of course those are estimates but it brings up the question of whether or not the government should be subsidizing certain types of food commodities. I guess my main question is more ethical in the way that I'm asking if the government should be putting more effort into subsidizing local non GMO and organic farms over the mass production poor practice farms?
Reply
Megan McPherson
4/17/2015 02:49:48 am
Excellent points here. The farm bill is not something I know much about, but after reading your article I have a new understanding. I like that this bill eliminated the old direct cash method. Especially since this method promoted farmers clearing land so they could claim it as additional field space when they did not really need it. It seems like there are still some issues that need to be worked out.
Reply
Jackie Tang
4/26/2015 11:31:20 am
I had never heard of the Farm Bill until I read this post. When it comes to subsidies, it's a fine line to walk one. On one hand, subsidies would ensure food is cheap and pentiful; certain products would be overproduced and driving prices down. But on the opposite side, farmers need subsidies to get by when their crops suffer from natural disasters. And judging from the increase in climate change, farmers need all the help they can get.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorThis blog is written by members of the Northeastern University undergraduate environmental politics course Archives
April 2015
Categories |