You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Article image
Froma Harrop
NationofChange / Op-Ed
Published: Friday 7 December 2012
While asking why taxpayers must subsidize waterfront development in areas under increasing threat from climate change, we should ask why weather-related questions stop at the shoreline.

Feds Subsidize Risk on Farms as Well as Beaches

Article image

As global warming causes more serious and frequent shoreline flooding, indignation rises over federal programs helping owners of beach properties rebuild in places the ocean wants to take back. Superstorm Sandy was a lollapalooza in terms of waterfront damage and demands on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's resources.

But while asking why taxpayers must subsidize waterfront development in areas under increasing threat from climate change, we should ask why weather-related questions stop at the shoreline. The federal government spends a fortune protecting farmers' incomes in drought-prone regions that are going to get hotter and dryer. That encourages people to grow thirsty crops where they shouldn't.

"The federal crop insurance program is far worse in many ways than the flood insurance in the incentives it gives farmers to do things that are risky," Craig Cox, who covers farm policy at the Environmental Working Group, told me.

Consider the case of Seth Baute, a farmer in Bartholomew County, Ind. Thanks largely to the taxpayers, he actually made more money after losing 60 percent of his corn crop to drought than he would have had rainfall been adequate (for growing corn, that is).

How did this happen? The story begins in 2000, when Congress replaced a more modest farm support program (paying out if drought, hail or flood substantially reduced the average yield) with an immodest program actually guaranteeing a farmer's income. Taxpayers on average pick up two-thirds of the premiums.

When the federal insurance policy is written in the spring, the crop is covered at the projected price. But if the price of corn goes up in the growing season, so magically does the insured price. Drought conditions across the heartland raised the price of corn last summer.

Thanks to the revenue protection program, even farmers whose crops withered into dust were paid according to the inflated price of corn.

As explained by Marcia Zarley Taylor on The Progressive Farmer website, the Baute family combined their federally subsidized 85 percent revenue protection policy with some private insurance. The result was that the family made 110 percent of what it expected before the drought, though it lost over half the crop.

Craig Cox notes that under the old subsidy program, taxpayers would have subsidized corn crops in Bartholomew County at a cost of about $24 an acre, while helping farmers with their losses. Under the new program, the government is paying up to $39 an acre.

Interesting that in the intense budget talks in Washington so little is being said about this bizarre transfer of wealth to farmers, which will cost $90 billion over the next 10 years, according to Congressional Budget Office projections. But wait, there's more.

The agriculture committee leaders are proposing to add another layer of federal spending — a whole new generation of farm subsidies that pick up a larger share of the deductible on federally subsidized crop insurance. Both the House and Senate versions include three such deals, tailored to specific crops. These new revenue subsidies would add between $25 billion and $35 billion to the $90 billion.

Last spring, the ranking Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, Pat Roberts of Kansas, expressed his determination to keep the new layer: "Anyone that wishes to offer an amendment to harm this agreed-upon product will be taken to Dodge City, Kan., and hung by the neck until they are dead."

So then, why not build your beach mansion on the shifting sands? Why not plant corn on parched land? After all, Uncle Sugar is guaranteeing you, flood or drought — unless the taxpayers get fed up enough to stop the game.


Author pic
ABOUT Froma Harrop
Froma Harrop’s nationally syndicated column appears in over 150 newspapers, including The Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, Seattle Times, Denver Post and Newsday. The twice-a-week column is distributed by Creators Syndicate, in Los Angeles. Harrop has written for numerous other publications, ranging from The New York Times and Institutional Investor, to Harper’s Bazaar and Metropolitan Home. Previously, she covered business for Reuters Ltd., in New York, and was a financial editor for The New York Times News Service. A Loeb Award finalist for economic commentary, Harrop was also honored by the National Society of Newspaper Columnists. Over the years, the New England Associated Press News Executives Association has named her for five awards.

I think everyone needs to be

I think everyone needs to be a little more careful in using the term, "farmers". Corporate agriculture makes up the vast majority of acreage being farmed. No doubt that has something to do with the increasing subsidies. Most family farmers are competing now with corporations who manipulate the system to lower their risk while putting pressure on family farms to sell out. An ancillary effect is that small towns die out because the corporations take their money out of local communities rather than spending money locally. Some of these comments remind me of the old Reagan meme about "chiselers on relief". Rather, it's more like "corporations on relief".

Merry Christmas, Monsanto!

Merry Christmas, Monsanto!

Yet another case of

Yet another case of subsidized AG! The public lands grazing industry accounts for less than 3% of the beef we eat, is subsidized to the tune of $500 million annually, and has decimated our western landscapes for over a century. We'd never miss those burgers if all the cows went away, and our lands could begin to recover. If it ever rains again, that is.

It's hard to imagine how the

It's hard to imagine how the taxpayers are ever going to get fed, let alone fed up, if farmers keep planting high water demand crops on land that is becoming desert. This doesn't even take into consideration what's happening in other parts of the world. If we are going to subsidize something, let's subsidize conservation, small scale eco-agriculture and local food production. A Kansas farmer.

Maybe Pat Roberts ought to be

Maybe Pat Roberts ought to be "hung by the neck" until he acknowledges his hypocrisy of smaller government and bigger subsidies. And then beaten with a switch smaller than his thumb (the rule of thumb) until he understands climate change and how he is helping to kill millions around the world. In Africa it is expected that 200 million people will die in the next century from climate related drought.

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...