$350 Billion in Subsidies to US Farmers

Scoop Media ^ | 13-12-01 | Maree Howard

[Blunderfromdownunder]

Trade delegations in Washington admitted defeat yesterday in their efforts to stop the U.S. from handing more than $350 billion in subsidies to its farmers. Maree Howard reports. Hard on the heels of a U.S. move to apply import tariffs on steel, a trade delegation led by Australian Agriculture Minister, Warren Truss, has spent two days trying to convince the U.S. Congress to change its planned Farm Bill.

Under the Bill, which goes before the U.S. Senate today, U.S. farmers will be paid to produce goods no matter the world price or demand.

Global dairy, citrus and sugar farmers will face the biggest threat from government-assisted U.S. farmers, although wheat and other broadacre crops will also face trouble.

Mr Truss said the decision of Congress to go ahead with the Farm Bill was bad for both Australian and world trade.

He said U.S. farmers were becoming less innovative and less prepared to adapt to world demand.

"We are especially concerned at the clear intent of the farm lobby to seek to entrench a mentality of farm subsidies in the USA," he said

Mr Truss says another problem was that the Bill undermined a new round of world trade talks.

He said while the U.S. had legitimate concerns about subsidies from the European Union, U.S. farmers were now getting more assistance than their European counterparts.
The $350 billion of subsidies in the Farm Bill will also affect New Zealand producers and is planned to stand for 10 years.
Australian Labour Opposition industries spokesman, Kerry O'Brien said " The Prime Minister should have given this matter much higher priority but he failed to do so and Australian (and NZ) farmers are the ones who will have to pay for his inaction."

[farmfriend]

This is the Bill

H.R.2646
Sponsor: Rep Combest, Larry(introduced 7/26/2001)
Related Bills: H.RES.248, S.1731
Latest Major Action: 10/17/2001
Title: To provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2011.

---

SUMMARY AS OF:
7/26/2001--Introduced.

Agricultural Act of 2001 - Directs the Secretary of Agriculture, through crop year 2011, to: (1) make fixed decoupled payments and counter-cyclical payments to eligible producers; (2) make marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency payments to covered commodity producers; and (3) extend programs for milk and dairy products, sugar, and peanuts.

Amends specified agricultural Acts to extend the: (1) suspension of permanent price support authority; (2) farmland protection program; (3) conservation reserve program; (4) environmental quality incentives program; (5) food for progress program; (6) market access program; (7) export enhancement program; (8) foreign market development cooperator program; (9) export credit guarantee program; (10) P.L. 480 programs; (11) food stamp and related nutrition programs; (12) emergency food assistance program; (13) commodity supplemental food program; (14) surplus commodities to special nutrition project program; and (15) wildlife habitat incentives program.

Establishes the: (1) congressional hunger fellows program; and (2) forest land enhancement program; and (3) sustainable forestry outreach initiative; (4) community and private land fire assistance program; (5) tree assistance program; (6) hazardous fuels to energy grant program; (7) senior farmers' market nutrition program; (8) grassland reserve program; and (9) farmland stewardship program.

Revises and extends specified agricultural credit programs, rural development programs, and agricultural research programs.

Revises land-grant institution provisions and other specified educational, extension, and research program provisions.

Repeals certain agricultural activities and authorities.

HR 2646

[Blunderfromdownunder]

I am not defending anything; in fact if you will look at a previous post of mine you will see that I have stated that I recognise its a preliminary/breaking news report on a web page and that If there is anything in the major dailies tomorrow I would post that too.

I realise that subsides arent the entire part of the bill, but according to the EWG Farm Subsidies database, direct farm subsidies accounted for more than 2/3rds of the monies budgeted for agricultural programmes from 1996-2000, thats a hefty chunk of cash whichever way you cut it. You will also note from farmfriends information that the bill is being sponsored by a Texas Republican and "...Directs the Secretary of Agriculture through crop year 2011".

So what we have is the US govt spending the equivalent of NZ350 billion over 10 years (current exchange rate is US$0.42 to NZ$1 roughly), of which (by historical precedent) probably more than 2/3rds will be used to subsidies farms, some of which are in ag. industries and areas that have required subsiding since the depression. Now, you can blame that on FDR I guess, buts its still going on.

I am amused that you would talk about the agenda of the articles author (although obviously she is writing for domestic NZ consumption so USA=big bad hypocrite and NZ/US=underdog), and then send me to www.heritage.org, presumably for a more reasoned and unbiased analysis.

I really dont understand your obsession with socialism and Cuba by the way; surely the fact that I have been criticising US govt farm subsidies so vehemently is evidence for the fact that I dont think governments should be continually propping-up industries to the detriment of their international competitors, let alone managing said industries in the socialist collective mold. What part of my position dont you understand?

Having checked my previous posts, nowhere do I say ALL American farmers get subsidies (I did ask a rhetorical question concerning whether all the rural areas tend to vote GOP though, and I do refer to "American Farmers" ina collective sense.). I have also noted that it does seem like these subsidies tend to go to the big boys with political clout (as opposed to the Mom n Pop small farmers).

In which case, whats your beef

[donozark]

The bill that will be considered today is Senate 1731. As to precisely how it differs from HR2646 will no doubt be clearly discussed today. Then of course reconciled. As to exactly what the final product will be? Time will tell.

[donozark]

EWG.org is funded by the Joyce Foundation...

[donozark]

Not right to compare the Heritage Foundation to the "Scoop." Heritage is a 30 year old conservative think-tank, not a tool of the media. They are a research and historical org. Doubt any are in favor of subsidies, including myself, since I'm a member.

Author clearly states "...US farmers will be paid to produce goods no matter the world price or demand." An unbiased reporter would have said "SOME US farmers..."

Total farm subsidy payments 1996-2000 were $71 Billion, or approx.$18 billion per annum.

USDA annual outlays (budget) was $63 billion in 1993. $54 billion in 1999. Discretionary program outlays were $15 billion or 30% of total USDA expenditures.

But these programs include WIC, management of forests/grasslands, research, tech programs,etc. Even so, no where near "2/3" claimed by EWG. An environmental org. funded by the JOYCE Foundation! Need I say more?

I do thank you for clearly (finally) stating that you are referring to "many" US farmers as opposed to ALL US farmers. Again, 60% of US farmers get ZERO dollars from farm subsidies. The 40% that do are the corporate elite, and individual wealthy types.

[farmfriend]

You are correct. It was an assumption on my part since S1731 had not made it out of the Senate while HR 2646 had moved from the House to the Senate and had been read twice therefore further in the process.

[farmfriend]

Senate should preserve $179 billion Farm Bill

Cedar Rapids, Iowa (November 14, 2001) - The newly adopted Grange resolution states that it is paramount that the Senate retains the $179 billion dollar budget approved by the House for the lifetime of the Farm Bill. "Agriculture's survival, our self sufficiency, our food supply and its safety depend on agriculture's profitability," the resolution states. The resolution also calls for sufficient funding for technical assistance on environmental practices. The Grange maintains that too much federal money is spent encouraging farmers to take land out of production and not enough is spent teaching them environmentally sound production practices. The Grange does support voluntary short-term conservation reserve programs targeted to meet price goals of at least production costs.

Other actions called for by the Grange's 2002 farm policy resolution include a return to tariffs on imported asparagus; a review of grazing policies to enhance weed control; a determination of how 31.4 million pounds of stored cheese where not accounted for by U.S.D.A. and caused a severe price drop in cheese when discovered; tracking of the identification, movement and disposition of Genetically Modified Organisms by USDA; support of initiatives to use farm silos as bases for communications antennas; equal standards for measuring hail damaged fruit; and encouragement for the development of value added products by America's farmers.

Founded in 1867, the National Grange is this nation's oldest general farm and rural public interest organization. The National Grange currently represents approximately 300,000 members affiliated with 3,400 local, county and state Grange chapters across the nation. The National Grange will hold its 135th Annual Convention at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Cedar Rapids, IA November 12-18, 2001. At that time, Grange delegates from across the nation will adopt grassroots policy positions related to the next Farm Bill and other rural issues.

[fleebag]

No kidding.....Follow the chain,huh? Turn Coat Jeffords should have stayed with Lott, Lott has no dairy barns in Miss. that I know of. There was a thread here on FR some time ago about this Northeast Dairy Compact and I also read an article in The Wall Street Journal. Wish I had saved that article.

[shaggy eel]

,,, your post #40 - intelligent MPs have the ability, particularly in a pre-election climate, to turn a salary raise down and make crap look like raspberry jelly. Now, that's my understanding of spin - and as you've said on this thread, I spin with the best of them.

[donozark]

Another problem with your post. I just emailed the "SCOOP" and was told it was US DOLLARS. Not NZD. Don't believe me? Email them and find out...No need to convert.

[donozark]

See my above post. US DOLLARS. Not NZD.

[shaggy eel]

,,, good initiative. Thanx for the clarification. I'll try www.fencepost.com and see if they have any similar news on this.

[Blunderfromdownunder]

Maybe the Alliance MPs will add the raise to their general kitty to help of Mr McCarten :-)

[shaggy eel]

,,, good one! Now, I'll give myself permission to smile at that thought!

[Blunderfromdownunder]

Uhuh. So, first you claim the amount mentioned in the "breaking news" article (ie has yet to be fully analysed/verified, is obviously once-over lightly etc etc) is far to big to be true. Then I say, well its probably in NZ dollars being a NZ article (its typical for NZ news agencies to convert foreign currency figures into NZ dollars when reporting). Then you actually find out that the $350 billion IS in US dollars, which you now dont seem to have a problem with. You pit your (biased, fallible) source of figures against my (biased, fallible) source of figures to show that farm subsidies dont account for all of the spending in the bill...And then you slip in that you dont agree with farm subsidies...So whats your point? Whether subsidies are 30% or 60% of $350 billion, that is still alot of welfare that we obviously both disagree with

[Blunderfromdownunder]

Here are the figures for USDA spending and farm subsidies from EWG. You can also search by state and county.

Farm subsidies database

[donozark]

I can't force you to accept FACTS. But they are here for all to see. Must I list them again? Not interested in EWG's interpretation. I posted figures from USDA. If they were eroneous, bureaucrats would be in jail...

What's my point? Article is horseshit. Your defense of same is pointless. Let's move on.

[Blunderfromdownunder]

Are you blind? EWGs position is almost exactly the same as heritage.org - The senate and congressional act/bills are bad. Regarding the article, how many times can I say "Breaking news".

[donozark]

The figures you posted from EWG are incorrect. EWG funded by Joyce Foundation. "Breaking news?" Hardly. This bill has been negotiated for some time now, and will continue to be. Heard in Senate today. The fact that you classified under "breaking news" is meaningless. That was your call. You are not making any sense. Why not put it to rest?

[Blunderfromdownunder]

Why are they incorrect? Because you say so, from your reading of another sites data? Puh-leeze! And I don't really give a damn if the Joyce Foundation funds them, the plain numbers are there for anyone who wants to look...Besides (and perhaps if I shout it will get through to you) ALTHOUGH THEY DIFFER ON EXACTLY WHY, BOTH HERITAGE.ORG AND EWG>COM THINK THEY ARE BAD FOR AMERICA...IN WHICH CASE, WHATS YOUR POINT??

And the article very much was "breaking news" and was headlined as such at Scoop.co.nz; it hadnt been covered in the NZ media at the stage of posting and nothing about it had been posted here at FR, where a good number of kiwis (and Americans) who enjoy talking about NZ/US relations, free-trade, government welfare and the burden on the taxpayer and so on, hang out (or at least, a search for "trade farm subsidies agriculture zealand USA"etc hadnt found anything here).

Your call to "move on" and "put it to rest" is the cry of someone who realises they have no case.