Posted on 12/01/2001 2:31:16 PM PST by MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
With Congress and the White House sparring over a farm bill, Arkansas Sen. Lincoln complains at a hearing that subsidy disclosures are "sensationalizing this information." (Rest of the article at WSJ.com)
The database is searchable. Here is a link to start looking through the 443 recipients from Shelbyville, TN.
Click here for Shelbyville, TN recipients of farm subsidies.
How true is there vision? Well not true enough to justify the PC attacks on honest, hard-working people of talent and energy. But true enough to give pause to any ideologues with a shred of honesty.
Yes. Notify the USDA you will not be growing corn next year.
I can't, but there are numerous land management welfare programs that are being taken advantage of by recent immigrants from India/Pakistan. They discuss the various programs at their religious/cultural gatherings.
Try joining the Sieke (?) church.
"nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
Farm production is heavily regulated by your federal government.
If U.S. citizens allow their federal government to regulate private property for their benefit, then the citizens have to pay for that regulation.
If I had a farm and my federal government was regulating my production of crops on my land, I would demand to be compensated as well.
Interesting link. Thanks for posting.
There are "Farms" receiving 20+ million.
I wonder if this is also being used by some to finance the terrorist activities? Just a thought!
Many of these farmers work in other professions simply because they cannot make a living wage on the farm and pay the maintainance on infrastructure and real estate taxes. The deficiency payments and CPR payments are fully taxeable as normal income. Agriculture land, when sold, is subject to full capital gains unless it has been cultivated or in an ag program for a specified number of years. Concommitant conservation practices are mandated in order to qualify for many of these programs. In some programs, amount of subsidy is directly correlated to amount and types of conservation practices.
The source of this information, Environmental Working Group, wants you to eat less meat, so they will do whatever it takes to assure it costs $15/pound or more. They are against all resource extraction/management jobs and work to make those industries disappear. They are attacking the concept of private property as they work to alienate urbanites who are narrowly focused on tax and income equity from rural landowners. Not only are these figures combined totals for 5 year periods, you do not realize that many of these farms are worth less than your suburban house on it's 1/4 acre lot or the midtown condo in a trendy neighborhood. However, the taxes paid on this land, if allowed to fallow or not enrolled in ag programs, is usually much higher than the residential properties above, especially when plotted against market value. This is more likely to be the case in States with "equalized valuation" laws.
EWG is a well-financed enviro umbrella group dedicated to Federalization of as much land as possible and the restriction on usage of whatever else exists. They work hand-in-glove with groups whose goal is no human-animal interaction at all, while backing repopulation of predators into ag land using your taxes via F&W and DNR.
So if this database pisses you off, you must want:
$15/lb hamburger
$5/gallon gasoline
$1/KwHr electricity
no metal extraction
100% imported food, energy, building materials
triple the cost of construction per sq ft
limited use of public land
limited private property
no hunting
no fishing
no animal breeding
no pets
You personally benefit from ag and resource subsidies in reduced costs and increased availability of all these goods/activities. You further benefit from food security, having ample food available at low cost. You become vulnerable when you purchase or your tax money susidizes even cheaper imports.
It is a messy, 3-D world, out there and it is never a zero-sum game. Pay at the door, pay ala carte, or pay when you leave; you will always pay. You must balance out the costs with the benefits for each and every aspect of life.
EWG knows it can exploit envy and so it does.
Libertarians are easily rolled.
That's nothing. Check places like Bell Buckle, TN and Wartrace, TN and other hole-in-the-wall towns. Now I know where people are getting the money for new cars all of the time. Was wondering...
And just think how we could all personally benefit if every industry in America had subsidies. /sarcasm
I am as conservative, if not more so, than YOU think you are. However, I know PERSONALLY the names on some of these lists. How I do is none of your business. They're extremely wealthy, as you probably are, and are feeding off of the public trough while we, the little people, can not afford even a fraction of the land they own.
If you want to pontificate, go elaborate for someone else. I do not deny the motivations of the aforementioned group. However, these landowners, by and large, do NOT need subsidies in this amount. That goes for those receiving hundreds of thousands right down to one receiving a little over two thousand dollars over five years. I can say no more until my posterity leaves home and are no longer affected by my impulsive reactions.
Were I to able to say more, I would be vindicated. However, I would also be unemployed.
Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin
P.S. Do not take your own revenge, beloved...vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord...also applies. God will take care of all...
These subsidy programs keep many Farm Servicing Agency employees employed, especially those that work under the committee system. There really are 2 employee systems in the Farm Servcing Agency - civil service for the loan staffs and committee system for those that service the subsidy programs. This is the catch - these folks have a valid interest in the continuation of the susbsidy programs (by far the bread and butter of the Farm Servicing Agency). That is why they have rather close ties with members of Congress.
It is hard to question this part of the Farm Servicing Agency because you are accused of being against the American farmer. This tactic is rather effective - but the growing discourse from the nonfarm public over taxpayer funds going to wealthy "farmers" has certainly brought greater awareness.
The entire farmer-elected scenerio is really a vast vestage of patronage politics. Employees hired under the farmer elected committee system are sometimes related to committee members and folks in the State Offices. Many of the politcal appointees that are State Directors have close ties to farm and commodity groups that support the subsidy programs. Employees can even particpate in the very same subsidy programs they are charged to administer, same with county committee members. In many cases, THEY KNOW MEMBERS OF CONGRESS PERSONALLY, ESPECIALLY THOSE MEMBERS THAT GET SUBSIDY PAYMENTS AND SIT ON IMPORTANT COMMITTEES THAT KEEP THE PROGRAMS GOING.
It would be interesting to see any correlation between subsidy payments and campign contributions.
This is a big political machine in the works. It needs to be exposed and fully investigated.
--------------------------------------------------
You may also be at a disadvantage because of excessive ideological revelation.
---------------------------------------
"I am as conservative, if not more so, than YOU think you are."
------------------------------------
I do not indulge in ideological comparisons, which are as invidious as most other comparisons. Neither do I believe you have a clue as to what anyone else *thinks*.
-------------------------------
" However, I know PERSONALLY the names on some of these lists."
------------------------------------------------
So what? In rural counties, most everyone knows most everyone, especially the prominent or those who come from families so long in residence that roads are named for them.
----------------------------------------------------------
"How I do is none of your business. They're extremely wealthy, as you probably are, and are feeding off of the public trough while we, the little people, can not afford even a fraction of the land they own."
----------------------------------------------------------
I don't care how you know anything; I did not attack you personally nor did I reference my own situation. I replied to the context of the post, which was a skillful bit of class warfare. I am not the least bit bothered by the wealth of others. You have no idea of my economic status, which truly is no one's business. Your envy and anger and need to compare is quite evident.
One must own land in order to qualify for any ag or conservation program, not the other way around. One must have farmed it at some time in the recent past prior to enrollment. The EWG did not include middle class or *land poor* recipients of the programs in question, because that wouldn't have incited the froth of envy portrayed by the responses. Cost per acre of farmland is astonishingly low. Cost of retaining inherited farmland is correspondingly high. Would it be preferable to see good cropland broken up into smallholds that are even less tenable than they are as part of a large spread? Why didn't EWG include the tax bills for these landowners? The impact of those taxes on rural townships is disproportionately high, since the base is, in many cases, shrinking, as the population leaves.
Our ag policy has many flaws. Many farmers/landowners refuse to participate (I am one)because of the intrusive control one grants to the agency in charge, exemplified by the phrase:"You took the money, didn'tcha?". However, there are no income qualifiers; this is not an entitlement, no matter how hard the class-envy crowd works to portray it as such.
If someone else didn't own these acerages, would that automatically make them the property of the *little guys*? NO. However, if someone didn't own these acerages, then could the Federal Government take them? Possibly; but more likely they would go to other wealthy people coming in from the cities who don't know how to farm and don't care to. If this land was not available at some time when we couldn't rely upon imported food, would you rather it was farmed by lease from the Fed to some Green willing to jump through innumerable hoops, the regulation of which would be paid for with your tax money, or put into organic garlic and goats or farmed by someone with a tie to that land who could, at the very least, rent it for cash money to one of those little guys who knows how to farm efficiently on their own hook? Then the little guy might be able to purchase more land for themselves.
----------------------------------------------------------
"If you want to pontificate, go elaborate for someone else."
---------------
Last time I checked, Free Republic was an open board. I stated fact and experience, as well as opinion, all clearly differentiated. I did not resort to ad hominem. You are entirely free to not read my posts. Do you advocate political litmus tests, as well as economic ones?
--------------------------------------------------
"I do not deny the motivations of the aforementioned group. However, these landowners, by and large, do NOT need subsidies in this amount. That goes for those receiving hundreds of thousands right down to one receiving a little over two thousand dollars over five years. I can say no more until my posterity leaves home and are no longer affected by my impulsive reactions."
-------------------------------------------------
Again, ag policy is not based on NEED. What sort of conservative uses individual NEED as a policy criteria? What is so dangerous about anyone with children stating political views on ag policy? In the rural areas, we all know the crackpots and hot heads and they are usually accepted for who they are. Subsidies and deficiency payments and CRP payments are a fact of life, freely debated everywhere from town meetings to the local weekly Letters to the Editor and the local coffee klatch. You are likely far less of a threat than you would like to believe.
---------------------
"Were I to able to say more, I would be vindicated. However, I would also be unemployed."
----------------------------------------------------------
So you know gossip that you fondly believe would make your point if you dared to explicate it, no matter in how veiled a manner, but you, as a working man, must refrain because the big bad employer and exploiter would punish you? FR is totally anonymous. Nothing about your circumstances is apparent from your screen name. Why not explain your reasoning in general terms, minus the the drama?
-----------------------------------------------------
"Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin P.S. Do not take your own revenge, beloved...vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord...also applies. God will take care of all..."
----------------------------------------------------------
There is also the bit about not coveting that could apply here.
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.