Posted on 11/05/2005 9:57:09 AM PST by tjbravo
(11-01) 17:31 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --
Half of government farm payments over the past decade have gone to just 22 of the 435 congressional districts, according to an analysis by the Environmental Working Group.
The group wants the federal government to cut payments to large farm operations and revise provisions that allow some to collect millions of dollars a year in subsidies. The Senate could vote on the issue this week.
"The whole system is tilted to a handful of big farm operations, and everybody else comes up short," said Ken Cook, the group's president. "We were surprised at the degree to which payments are concentrated in those several dozen congressional districts.
"Once members of Congress see just how much they would stand to gain by a fairer distribution, I think that will help shift the debate," Cook said.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said Tuesday he will try to add payment limits to the budget-cutting bill being debated this week in the Senate. He proposes lowering the amount of payments that can be collected each year from $360,000 to $250,000. He would also revise provisions that allow many growers to evade the limits.
Grassley would use the $1 billion in savings to bolster conservation and spare farmers from across-the-board payment reductions. The budget bill in the Senate would cut more than $3 billion from food and farm programs, mostly from conservation and farm payments.
Farm payments are heavily concentrated in the Midwest, the group found. Farmers in 22 congressional districts collected more than half of all subsidies, about $69 billion, in the past decade, EWG said.
The group maintains a database of annual payments, based on Agriculture Department data, and released its 2005 analysis Tuesday. The Agriculture Department made farm subsidy payments over the last 10 years to farmers in 408 of the nation's 435 congressional districts. Over the decade, 349 districts got at least $1 million.
The list of the most subsidized districts reads like a Who's Who on the agriculture committees in Congress. They include those of lawmakers from North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and parts of Kansas, Nebraska, Arkansas, Minnesota, Iowa, Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Illinois, Colorado, California, Georgia and Louisiana.
Some of the top farm-producing states aren't on the list; for example, Florida. And all but one of California's 23 districts are omitted.
"We're talking about 22 legislators who are having a four-course meal while more than 400 others are dining on table scraps," said Scott Faber, spokesman for Environmental Defense, another group lobbying for payment limits. "This should be a wake-up call to legislators in the Northeast, Florida and the Southwest."
The Bush administration asked Congress for payment limits early in the year but quickly backed off amid strong objections from farmers.
Cotton and rice growers would bear the brunt of limits, because their crops cost more to grow and get higher subsidies. Limits are opposed by Sen. Thad Cochran. R-Miss., who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., who heads the Agriculture Committee.
Grassley noted that Congress voted for strict caps in 2002, only to see the limits unravel in House-Senate negotiations on the final farm bill.
"We've got a lot of strong opposition, but we did have 66 votes three years ago, so I think we have the opportunity to get it passed," Grassley said.
In other news
Farms Seen as Concentrated in Midwest
What about the farming activity concentrated in California, Florida, Texas, etc. It's not even close to being in one place, it's a matter of what is grown where.
I think that what needs to be examined here is why is there a concentration of money in a single (or handful) of districts?
My first guess is going to be a concentration of land ownership by a small group of people/corporations/partnerships. The landowner makes the money, not the farmer.
Take a drive and ask around as to who is buying up the farmland. You'll find a very short distance between the two points of corporate farms and chemical/seed companies.
What do YOU reckon most of that money is going to be spent on?
Also in the news women seem to have more children.
I think when Congress thinks about farming they think about corn and beans.
The money is going to be spent on new pickup trucks, farm equipment, and property taxes. At least that is how it works in my small part of Minnesota. Farms are bigger it is true, but most of the corporate farming is partnerships of area farm families who have been here for decades.
I think Congress thinks very diffently about farming. I think that they know exactly where the money goes. There are far too many lobbies stroking them to be unaware in any way.
Fuel, chemicals, seed, and equipment.
Yes, there are a lot of farm families joining together. No, they are not MOST of corporate farming. Perhaps they are in your county.
Are you in the midwest or in California, Texas, Florida, etc?
Texas. Cotton and rice. I don't farm, but my husband and I work for farmers.
I think we will just have to agree to disagree. Conditions in the two areas are very different. I might add that I am not in favor of farm welfare, but it appears to be a fact of life for the present.
I think we agree in more ways than one, actually. I do believe that any type of welfare creates an immediate dependance by the recipient. I also know that oftentimes these fellows are driving more truck or equipment than they need, or than they can afford. It is a culture of competition for dollars, and we are often told that the newest and most advanced technology makes a difference. With prices so low for the produce, pennies per acre can make a difference.
Cheer for the farmers who can be successful on their own, and hope for a day that they are paid a fair price for their labor.
Want to know now much the farmers in your County got in subsidies? Use this database to find out.
Publish the names and amounts and listen to them howl.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Grassley amendment to put a cap on payments was defeated yesterday.
When the Ag Committee chair comes from big program state it's difficult to make the needed changes.
In Iowa, there are more family farmers, than the "Big Ones". Yes, there are plenty of big operations here, but the ownership is split among 3 generations of one family. One combine, one planter (sometimes 2 of each) which cover ALL the row crops in that family unit. There are 6 familes and 3 generations on our family unit. Each family certifies separately, but shares equipment and labor.
It is the same in southern Minnesota. Don't know about wheat country up in the Red River Valley though.
We're only about 4 hrs South of you, that's probably why there are similarities.
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.