I wrote the following letter to the editor in response to an article gushing with praise for the insane farm bill — and the resulting farm subsidies. It was published by VOICE OF SAN DIEGO. To give it wider circulation, I’m including it here and on other blogs and social media.
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/opinion/article_718e5a9a-9d93-11e2-81b8-001a4bcf887a.html
Regarding VOICE OF SAN DIEGO article “Why the Farm Bill Matters to San Diego”
Funny. This booster article (is it an op-ed or an article?) touting the joys of farm subsidies never mentions the cost of the “farm bill.” It neglects to mention that not only taxpayers but consumers end up paying more for these subsidies — disbursed primarily to wealthy agri-businesses. In essence, we are borrowing from our offspring (via deficit spending) to pay for this largess.
Piddling details, I know. Still, consider this article from The Cato Institute from last year: “Farm Subsidies and Reverse Robin Hood,” that includes testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives from Cato employees:
EXCERPT: Farm subsidies redistribute wealth from taxpayers to often well-off farm businesses and landowners. “Farm income stabilization” payments have recently fluctuated between about $13 billion and $33 billion annually. This is a welfare hand-out like food stamps, yet it goes to higher-income households. In 2010, the average income of farm households was $84,400, or 25 percent above the $67,530 average of all U.S. households. Moreover, the great bulk of farm subsidies go to the largest farms.
For balance, consider this more detailed critique from the Environmental Working Group:
EXCERPT: From 1995-2009 the largest and wealthiest top 10 percent of farm program recipients received 74 percent of all farm subsidies with an average total payment over 15 years of $445,127 per recipient — hardly a safety net for small struggling farmers. The bottom 80 percent of farmers received an average total payment of just $8,682 per recipient.
Sadly, apparently these insane subsidies are supported by a majority of legislators of both the “free market” GOP and the “redistribute the wealth” Democrats. I’m not sure which political party is more hypocritical regarding farm subsidies.
Richard Rider is the chairman of San Diego Tax Fighters.
Comments 3
I would really feel more informed if I understood the term farmer. I could purchase a hundred acres of land in the Anza Borrego for $20,000. Plant Afghan poppies, and drill for water, (or hell, hand water if I can save a buck) .
Does this endeavor make me a small or big farmer. Either way sign me up. Brawley farmers grow thousands of acres of grass. How much do they get?
Hell I can grow grass. All I would need is Manure. And we all know where there is an endless supply of manure!
Scottie Pippen and other urban luminaries are absentee land owners and claim they are “farmers.” Until recently, they could collect six figure incomes for not farming. While there have been some reforms, the best reform is to kill the program all together.
Great post. i would add that farm subsidies harm the environment by bringing marginal land into production, depleting water supplies and through overuse of fertilizers. Great Cato article on 10 reasons to cut farm subsidies is a nice summary.