Posted on 05/22/2009 10:53:02 PM PDT by o_zarkman44
EDITORIAL
Crop Farmers Could Also Be Impacted by EPA Tax By Estil Fretwell Missouri Farm BureauCut to the Chase An editorial column from the Missouri Farm Bureau Federation701 South Country Club Drive, Jefferson City, MO 65102 · Voice (573) 893-1468 · Fax (573) 893-1560 · www.mofb.org
This column may also be used as an op/ed piece or letter to the editor.
Crop Farmers Could Also Be Impacted by EPA Tax By Estil Fretwell
Considerable media attention has been given to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published last fall by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which could tax livestock flatulence. In Missouri alone this livestock tax may exceed $300 million. But the potential new rules do not stop with livestock, because crop farmers could pay additional fees as well.
While subject to considerable debate, the EPA released a finding that greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, pollute the air and cause global temperature changes. These "pollutants" are emitted from many sources, including agriculture. Title V of the Clean Air Act requires that entities emitting, or with the potential to emit, 100 tons per year of a regulated pollutant must obtain a permit and pay associated fees.
According to USDA figures, the 100-ton threshold would impact farms with over 500 acres of corn. American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) calculates that other crop farms would be impacted as well such as those with 250 acres of soybeans, 1000 acres of cotton, 1000 acres of wheat, and 35 acres of rice.
The EPA sets a presumptive minimum fee (tax) rate of $43.75 per pollutant ton. Thus using that minimum rate, AFBF has determined that corn would be taxed at $8.75 per acre, soybeans at $17.50 per acre, cotton and wheat at $4.48 per acre, and rice at $125 per acre.
Taking the AFBF figures per acre and data from the 2007 Agriculture Census, one discovers that crop farmers in Missouri alone could be taxed annually at least $100 million. Combined with a $300 million tax on livestock, this could result in new taxes on Missouri farmers at an astounding $400 million or 20% of their 2007 net farm income!
As AFBF points out in a letter to EPA, the debate is even more alarming when one considers that EPA does not take into account the fact agriculture and forestry take more greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere than they emit. According to EPA, agriculture and forestry emit about 7 percent of the U.S. total of greenhouse gas emissions; however, at the same time they offset 11.4 percent of the U.S. total.
AFBF also writes that agriculture and forestry differ from other sectors because they emit relatively small amounts of carbon dioxide and relatively larger amounts of methane and nitrous oxide which stay in the atmosphere less time than carbon dioxide. Further noted is the fact that emissions associated with agriculture are natural processes.
EPA should be cautious about proposing new taxes on American agriculture, particularly when the justification is so questionable. The effect will be to alter the fundamental structure of U.S. agriculture as taxes of this magnitude cannot be absorbed by our farmers and ranchers. Ultimately, we must decide where we want our food produced - at home or abroad?
(Estil Fretwell, Jefferson City, Mo., is director of public affairs for Missouri Farm Bureau, the state’s largest farm organization.)
Since when did a tax do anything to repair the climate?
Ping for the gardening and farming thread!
The amusing thing is that farmers will do one of two things. First, they will simply play by the rules and demand the increase be passed along to consumers, which might or might not happen. Second, they could decide that none of this is worth the effort, and just sit on the land for a year with no crop production...collecting welfare. The nation would end up buying a high amount of its produce...from outside the US, from nations who didn’t play the cap and trade game.
My dad was a part-time farmer with 120 acres of crop land at one point. He got into some government deal where they actually paid him to grow nothing for an entire year....collecting 75 percent of what he would have made anyway. After a year of this....he thought the whole thing was a joke and went back to real production. I’m guessing alot of farmers might go for the program...and see how far the nation can go.
Oh, and you should note here...from the farming belt of the US...a number of Senators are democrat, if you haven’t noticed. I’m already guessing that cap-and-trade will dissolve away real quick when they figure out the cost to farmers in their states.
I am beginning to think the whole motive behind this is to starve and freeze out the Great Unwashed.
Obama lied, America died!
All the useful idiots who voted for Obama thought that he would raise taxes on the “rich guys ‘n gals” are finding out the ugly truth: He is going to raise everybody’s taxes!
First the school system dumbs us down so much that we fall for an algore "global warming/carbon is killing us all" scam and then encourage them to them take our money to "fix" it.
Without a decent education and the will to use it, we humans are a bunch of dumb, emotional herd animals...lemmings in search of a cliff.
How will liberal members of Congress from farm states like ultra liberal Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) react to these moves by the Obama administration? Will they drink the global warming kool-aid and pass cap and trade which will also affect agriculture? It would seem they will have a lot to explain to voters before the next election.
Where did the EPA get the authority to levy taxes?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.