I am not against agriculture or farmers. What I am against, however, are the schizophrenic, wasteful and counter-productive ways in which the US Department of Agriculture tries to help farmers and the agriculture industry.
Farm products are essential to our economy and to our very lives. We could not live without farm products. With the death of communism, the world knows that the law of supply and demand applies to every industry, agriculture no less than oil and gas or automobiles. As supply of a commodity or service increases, the price of that commodity or service decreases, unless there is a corresponding increase in demand.
These two facts should place farmers among the highest paid people in the country. The reality is far from this, however. Why? Our nation pays farmers over $4 billion per year in assistance. (The total USDA budget is over $17 billion, but about half of this goes for food stamps and another quarter for energy projects, mainly rural electrification. Why the USDA instead of Energy and Health & Human Services administers these is anybody's guess.)
The unfortunate truth is that farmers are victims of their own success. Today's farmer produces several multiples of the amount of crops that farmers produced three generations ago. Since the population has only doubled In that time, this means that out of 25 farms run by our great-grandfathers, 23 must go out of business for the remaining two to survive today. The principle holds: if prices are consistently too low for farmers to survive without government price supports, then there are too many farmers, no matter how many have gone out of business.
The last thing the industry needs is to encourage more people to go into farming, yet that is exactly the thrust of many farm programs. A couple of years ago, the NY State Department of Agriculture initiated a program (undoubtedly with USDA funds) to pay individual farmers up to $50,000 to build bed-and-breakfast and other facilities to encourage tourism on their farms. One of the justifications was that it might encourage people to go into farming.
My wife's family have been farmers for generations. They all live in a New York county that is 95% agricultural. In listening to them, the reasons why we need farm subsidies boil down to four, of varying merit:
- We must have a secure food source. The US cannot rely upon foreign nations for our food.
- American farmers have to meet standards of quality, land maintenance and pesticide use that other nations' farmers do not. This drives up American farmers' costs, requiring subsidies to level the playing field.
- Farm subsidies keep American food prices among the lowest in the world.
- Farmers work long hours in poor conditions for compensation that is unpredictable and usually low.
My own counter arguments to these follow, but I encourage you to provide your own. I also encourage you to write your congressmen to head off what is soon to become an all-out press for another federal bail out, this time for farmers.
- a. A huge portion of US crops is exported, glutting world grain markets. This surplus is not for our food security.
b. Foreigners will never be able to supply the entire food needs of a nation as large as the USA. At some combination of price and production, US farmers will compete with anyone.
c. To postulate that Americans will stop producing crops is like postulating that Americans will stop repairing cars for a living. Markets, like holes in the water, will be filled.
- a. Requirements to meet high standards have not kept American farmers from being the most productive in the world.
b. One of the major sources of water pollution in America is runoff from cattle and hog operations and excess fertilizer from fields. To the extent that US farmers do comply with environmental regulations, it is good business to do so.
- If we include taxes paid to farmers as subsidies, the cost of food in America is much higher.
- So what if farmers work hard? So do auto mechanics.
If you want a real eye-opener, go to the USDA website and explore.
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=prsu&topic=landing
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 25
1) Since the US is attempting to wean itself from tobacco use, and it does not appear there is any real investment in finding alternative uses for that product, why are we still subsidizing tobacco farming?
2) Why are we subsidizing large corporate farmers (ie ADM)? It would seem these subsidies should go to individual and coop farms that raise and sell locally.
3) Why aren't we finding out how to use something besides corn in biofuels? Brazil uses sugar. We subsidize sugar anyway ...
4) Why do we pay plot-holders for land fallows? If someone has no intention of farming, they should not be receiving subsidies.
Farm work isn't easy and it's quite dangerous. Farmers who do the work deserve to be well paid. Unfortunately, those who do the work aren't paid all that well and many family farmers are always on the edge of losing their farms.
This made a lot of people want to insure that America would always have sufficient food and therefore has paid some farmers to allow their land to lie fallow for a period of time the farmer could not have otherwise afforded. Whether that was good or not, it was seen as a solution to a problem and a protection for this nations agriculture industry.
And you are absolutely correct, the programs were intended for the family farmer and have been co-opted by the corporate conglomerates. I would comment that I grew up in agricultural country and knew mostly small, to very small, farmers. They did not sell locally because there is a shortage of market locally to provide the market for even small farmers. The markets are in the cities where there is little farming done.
I, like you, am satisfied that certain of these programs have run their course and are no longer viable or wise to continue, representing an outlaying of funds with no realistic return. Perhaps some of these will be addressed by the Obama administration.
All that is no justification for subsidies.
We should definitely cut subsidies to farmers who are not farmers but corporations, who make millions and millions of dollars and should not even be eligible for the money. And start supporting small, local farmers willing to turn away from mono-crops and pesticides.
This country is so screwed up.
One cultural problem I see regarding farming is that we don't give farmers the status their important work deserves. Farming is not just about planting and harvesting, but requires complicated managerial and technical skills equivalent to those of people in other professions, which are given higher status. In books and movies, farmers and their families are often portrayed as being backward, uneducated, independent, with a homespun intelligence and kindness. Has there been a recent movie or book that showed a farmer as a sexy hero/heroine or smart criminal?
Perhaps this lack of cultural status for farming and farmers contributes to poor governmental decisions on agriculture.
Herein lies the key. We start something because we see a need, then we continue it even after the need is gone because we are afraid to tick off the people who might vote against us the next election cycle. Especially if you are a representative from the various farm belts.
There are good reasons to continue, and perhaps even expand, some farming subsidies, and equally good (if not better) reasons for killing other subsidies. Our elected officials need to stop being afraid of changing things where they are needed; which means we, the public, have to stop rewarding pandering and penalizing long-term thinking.
Very good post. Thanks.
There are many misconceptions about farming today. And Brain is right - the help should go to those who are doing to responsible things. Washington County, NY is beautiful - farms, pastures and lakes hidden among rolling hills. You can see well kept farms, buildings neat (even if not freshly painted), equipment working. YOu can see others with falling down barns, rusting machinery sitting in unkempt weed-grown fields. The point is that there are farmers, even family farmers, who should be encouraged to close down (or get readily available education ).
I wrote a piece on this two years ago, Gary, saying most of the same things you are saying.
Here is the link.
Thanks for the link. I saw an article in Money or some such saying that farm subsidies, especially the payments for taking farm land out of production can be "an important part of an investment portfolio." Shameless!
http://www.hulu.com/watch/67878/the-future-of-food