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

Washington Post ^ | Sunday, July 2, 2006 | By Dan Morgan, Gilbert M. Gaul and Sarah Cohen

[mikeybaby]

The Agricultural subsidy program, like most Government programs, is a joke.
Think Hank Kimball of Green Acres times ten.

[art_rocks]

Another program that won't die. Its obivious this program needs to be shut down. Those who work there don't want their jobs to go away so will state that they give out so much $ that they still need to be around. It the program was shut down, would anyone notice.

There needs to be a process to determine when programs are no longer affective and be reduced or closed.

[Phocion]

Maybe someone can explain what this waste of taxpayers money program is supposed to accomplish.

The goal of the program is reelection through bribery.

Of course, the same could be said of all farm subsidies, the rest of which dwarf this tiny $1.3 billion.

[tacticalogic]

Another program that won't die. Its obivious this program needs to be shut down. Those who work there don't want their jobs to go away so will state that they give out so much $ that they still need to be around. It the program was shut down, would anyone notice.

The professional bureaucrats who live and work in the beltway have better access to your representatives than you do.

[Moonman62]

Maybe someone can explain what this waste of taxpayers money program is supposed to accomplish.

It's so the princes of Incumbistan can stay in power.

[Iscool]

Most of the money goes to real farmers who grow crops on their land, but they are under no obligation to grow the crop being subsidized. They can switch to a different crop or raise cattle or even grow a stand of timber -- and still get the government payments. The cash comes with so few restrictions that subdivision developers who buy farmland advertise that homeowners can collect farm subsidies on their new back yards.

That's not the way it works in my neck of the woods...

First off, the payments are NOT automatic...You have to get approved on a yearly basis...You are then not allowed to do anything with the land...It is 'set aside'...There are a lot of stipulations...

This is different than the price supports that are paid to some farmers...

[R.W.Ratikal]

I have always said, let farmers grow all they want to and pay us not to buy it.

[Almondjoy]

No you are wrong.

First he's giving the money to something important. By turning the money away he's taking a chance that someone greedy will do nothing with it.

So in effect he's turning it right around to charity.

Second he's also speaking out in the article. If he wanted to keep things the way they are he would say nothing and keep doing whatever he wants to do.

Instead he's saying "Hey! We have a problem. Let's go fix it."

So he's not gaming at all because he's not hiding the fact that he gets money he shouldn't.

He's advocating change.. not keeping it the same.

I respectfully have to disagree with your position.

[GeronL]

we need to end all forms of subsidies, price supports, licensing, cartels and whatever.

We need to bring back free market principles.

[Fury]

We will disagree on this.

It's easy to take the government money and then do something noble with that money.

The question becomes - is that the function of government? - to transfer wealth as being discussed in the article?

His giving away money in the manner so described is an awful inefficient way to provide for the people Mr. Matthews is helping with his donations. Writing a check using *his* funds may provide more satisfaction.

I've received two such payments from USDA in the past. But I realized afterwords that if we can't make it without government assistance then maybe we need to not be involved in the business of agriculture. The funds received were paid back, albeit to the Bureau of Public Debt. Corny - maybe, but it was best for our situation, and made the situation as right as we could.

If Mr. Matthews believes he should not be getting the money, he should not take it. Taking the money in one action and then in the next saying there should be change in the program so that folks like him are not eligible for ag payments from this perspective seems nonsensical.

But again, that is from this perspective.

[RFEngineer]

"It's easy to take the government money and then do something noble with that money."

I agree with you, although I'll give Mr. Matthews a little slack for at least saying he doesn't want the money.

This is no different than Katrina "victims" collecting free money from FEMA. Farmers who accept these payments are sowing BS and harvesting the taxpayer.

Whenever I buy a gallon of milk I'm reminded of how effective government is with it's agricultural programs.

[calcowgirl]

Does this irk anybody else or is it just me ?

You are not alone.

[Dustbunny]

We have 25 acres, wonder if we can get some of that 'free taxpayer cash'.

[scannell]

Worse than that is the artificial sugar prices that are set by the government. Everyone pays for this nonsense.

[Coleus]

we have had a RINO Congress for over 10 years and a RINO president, what do you expect.

[spunkets]

"I don't farm, either. How do I get a piece of this action?"

Tell them you're milking 50 cows in your 3 car garage and will offer to shut down the op and turn it over for endangered mouse habitat.