Farm Bill question. Are we still paying farmers NOT to grow crops?

[johnaries]

I know that we were paying subsidies to some people who aren't even farmers. If we are, shouldn't we STOP? I have no problem helping out real farmers who need it.

[napi21]

1. From everything I've read, we are NOT paying anyone NOT to grow

crops. We ARE however still granting farm subsidies, and a lot of that $$ goes to the ADM's of the world. It's always a battle in Congress when they try to pass the Farm Bill.

[johnaries]

2. Thanks! I wasn't able to find a good answer.

I know that we used to subsidize farmers in some circumstances for not using their land in order to prices from falling. I know that we still give huge subsidies to people who don't need them, which also means the ones who do need them are at a disadvantage.

[Two Americas]

5. prices

"Set asides" are the way prices are stabilized. The right wing framing of that is "the farmers are throwing away food!" A crop does not become "food" until it is harvested, sorted, cleaned, inspected, and transported to where the eaters are. Sometimes the government tells growers to "set aside" a portion of a crop - not harvest it - to stabilize supply and prices. This is no more wasting food or throwing away food than it is when we fail to harvest billions of tons of food growing wild every year.

It is the public who is being subsidized by agricultural programs, not farmers.

[bean fidhleir]

6. "It is the public who is being subsidized by agricultural programs, not farmers."

Would you like to revisit that statement? If the public is paying both "soil bank" subsidies AND higher prices, exactly how are we being subsidized, and by whom?

[Two Americas]

8. not sure

Not sure what you are arguing here. If you are going to argue a libertarian free market point of view (not sure that you are) then that really has nothing to do with agriculture.

From the land grant agricultural colleges to the New Deal ag programs, an infrastructure committed to the public welfare has been built that has resulted in inexpensive quality food for the public. It is self-evident that the public has benefited from this, and that farmers have not always benefited from this. It is still easier to be an eater in this country than it is to be a farmer. Would you deny that?

How are we being subsidized and by whom when it comes to public education, the public highway system, the Internet, the national park service, public safety, and hundreds of other similar public projects and institutions?

[bean fidhleir]

12. I could have been more clear, I agree. My objection is to the idea that we the public

are being subsidized by some other group (perhaps farmers, in your formulation) when we're the ones paying the bills. I'd suggest that it's agribusiness -from megafarm to market- that's being subsidized by working people, not us being subsidized by some other group as per your statement.

[Two Americas]

13. agreed

"...it's agribusiness -from megafarm to market- that's being subsidized by working people.."

Yes. But just as the corruption of the FDA by pharmaceutical corporations is not good cause for dismantling the agency, so too, the fact that the USDA (to a much lesser degree than the FDA) has been corrupted by corporate agri-business is not good cause for piling on with the right wingers and attacking our public agricultural infrastructure of research, inspection, testing, breeding, education, soil and water management, toxicology and price and supply stabilization. Nor is blaming farmers progressive.

There are many good ideas being floated now by politicians, and they need public support: putting a cap on subsidies so that the money does not all go to the big players, as it does now; moving some of the resources out of grain (a subsidy for meat) and cotton and into fruits and vegetables; setting standards for who is and who is not a "farmer" and therefore eligible for subsidies; country of origin labeling; training and incentives for new farm workers; increased funding for agricultural research; protection of good farm land from the ravages of development and real estate speculation; investment in the rural infrastructure: schools, health care facilities and personnel, roads and bridges; support for value-added agriculture product initiatives and agri-tourism and direct farm to consumer marketing.

[bean fidhleir]

21. "Nor is blaming farmers progressive"

I hope that paragraph is aimed elsewhere despite how it looks, because otherwise I'll insist that you show where I blame farmers.

[Two Americas]

23. why?

We are exploring an issue, not having a crossfire dueling talking points food fight. I don't care if you personally do or do not blame farmers, and I didn't say that you did.

I said that we should not.

[bean fidhleir]

25. No, actually you didn't.

The word "we" does not appear in the post to which I replied.

What DOES appear is you agreeing with and quoting my statement, but then going on to say "But just as the corruption of the FDA by pharmaceutical corporations is not good cause for dismantling the agency, so too, the fact that the USDA (to a much lesser degree than the FDA) has been corrupted by corporate agri-business is not good cause for piling on with the right wingers and attacking our public agricultural infrastructure of research, inspection, testing, breeding, education, soil and water management, toxicology and price and supply stabilization. Nor is blaming farmers progressive."

Unless you believe/d that I'm advocating dismantling the FDA, joining with rightwingers to attack the ag infrastructure, or blaming farmers, I think your juxtaposition there was inappropriate to say the least.

[Two Americas]

26. whatever

I can't censor what I say based on anticipating you taking offense over something you think I am implying.

[bean fidhleir]

27. You're a native speaker, right? Intelligent? Educated? You consider yourself an intellectual?

It certainly shouldn't be beyond you to avoid murky ambiguity when you write. All it takes is a paragraph break and some pronouns.

[Two Americas]

30. what?

I have expressed my thoughts clearly, and used paragraph breaks and pronouns adequately. If I didn't say "you" then I didn't mean "you." I can't control whether or not you heard "you" when I didn't say "you," can I?

[bean fidhleir]

31. The "nearest antecedent" rule of English does not require

that the word "you" be written every time it's meant. It can legitimately be implied by and inferred from context. Every native writer/reader relies on that rule.

All I'm asking is that you actually DO write plainly, rather than claiming that you're writing plainly when you're not. Is that too much to ask? I'm quite sure, from the general level of your language skill, that you know the difference.

[grasswire]

3. find the answers on Bill Moyers page

He had an expose a couple of weeks ago that was astounding. You can read some of it here: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04112008/profile2.html

April 11, 2008

By April 18, 2008 the huge spending bill commonly know as "The Farm Bill" must be reauthorized. The bill encompasses so many programs and payouts that its fans and foes don't fall into predictable camps.
The first major farm subsidies grew out of the Depression and Dust Bowl, when in 1933 the government began paying "parity" price roughly equal to what prices should be during favorable market times.

As "Cash Cows and Cowboy Starter Kits" from EXPOSÉ illustrates, some of the subsidies in the current iteration of the bill don't go to the stereotypical small American farmer — or even to farmers at all. And, budget trimmers and foreign trading partners have long been critical of many subsides in the farm bill. Here's what THE WALL STREET JOURNAL has to say about the current Farm Bill process:

With grain prices soaring, farm income at record highs and the federal budget deficit widening, the subsidies and handouts given to American farmers would seem vulnerable to a serious pruning.
But it appears that farmers, at least so far, have succeeded in stopping the strongest effort in years to shrink the government safety net that doles out billions of dollars to them each year. --"Bountiful Harvest: Farm Lobby Beats Back Assault On Subsidies," THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, March 27, 2008

Other elements of the Farm Bill have vocal advocates because the bill also will refund food aid programs. David Beckmann's Bread for the World is a member of a coalition of groups pressing for the reauthorization. These groups are hoping that a new bill configuration in which a $9.5 billion increase for nutrition over 10 years is included.
And then, there are the international and environmental concerns. The head of World Bank chastised some agribusinesses and farmers stating: "Demand for ethanol and other biofuels is a 'significant contributor' to soaring food prices around the world." At the same time, THE NEW YORK TIMES reports that some American farmers are prepared to forgo the subsidies that kept lands out of cultivation because of the higher commodity prices:

Thousands of farmers are taking their fields out of the government's biggest conservation program, which pays them not to cultivate. They are spurning guaranteed annual payments for a chance to cash in on the boom in wheat, soybeans, corn and other crops. Last fall, they took back as many acres as are in Rhode Island and Delaware combined. -- "As Prices Rise, Farmers Spurn Conservation Program," David Streitfeld, THE NEW YORK TIMES, April 9, 2008.
This in turn, worries environmentalists who contend that progress restoring native habitats will be lost.
Find out more about the history of American Farm Bills, and the debate over the current reauthorization measure below.

Published on April 11, 2008.

[Two Americas]

4. right wing framing of the issue

"Paying farmers not to grow crops" is a reactionary right wing frame. We subsidize farmers to maintain soil quality for future generations and public benefit.

The public agricultural infrastructure, including the most successful and beneficial government programs in history, under severe attack from the right wing, is not designed to "help out" farmers, it is designed to protect the public interest. It is the eaters who are being helped out. Food and food production is an essential public resource, and should be managed as such.

[havocmom]

7. BINGO! Conservation is important

and farmers sometimes need subsidies because the price they get for a crop and what it takes to produce a crop sometime do not match.

As expensive as we THINK food is here, it has been much cheaper than most appreciate. Farmers have to buy retail and sell wholesale, with someone else setting prices. And if they are to rest land from time to time, as good land stewardship demands, they still have taxes to pay and their own families to feed.

When we 'help out' farmers, REAL farmers, we are engaging in efforts to really keep America secure. The ADMs out there would just love for the independents to be forced out of business. And giant multi-national corporations controlling your bellies will be much more dangerous than the oil companies controlling your fuel tank.

[Two Americas]

9. hi havocmom

Thanks. What a breath of fresh air your posts are! I don't run into you here as much as I would like.

:hug:

[ThomWV]

10. No, now we are paying non-farmers not to grow crops based on what farmers used to grow

[Two Americas]

14. abuse of the system

Yes, there are those abusing the system. Caps and more stringent guidelines are needed.

[Two Americas]

11. triangles

Thanks for the post and the interest you have in agriculture issues.

There are "triangles" in all of our political discussions, and you are knocking on that door. Come on in! :)

We are led to believe that there are two and only two sides to every issue. This serves those in power and corrupts and compromises our discussions, weakens our understanding, and paralyzes us politically. In every case, both of the two "sides" to an issue are false and misleading.

For example, in agriculture we are to believe that we must choose from these two, and only these two stances:

- We can take Monsanto's side, with GMO and pesticides and environmental degradation and contaminated and unhealthy food. This is supposedly the Republican side of the issue, and they market this is as "freedom" and use the phony libertarian arguments, and have very useful foils in the liberal activist community. In this scenario, government is seen as the big bad problem, a creature of the libruls, to be eliminated. Let the culture war begin!

- Then we have the liberal or "progressive" choice - socially responsible investing, riding bikes to "save the planet," choosing "organic," going vegetarian, and using other personalized and individualistic and "better" choices, rewarding corporations for "going green" and a wide variety of "solutions" that are all based on enlightened individual choices. This is libertarianism with an "organic" label slapped on it. In this scenario, the government is seen as the the big bad problem, a creature of the neo-cons and corporations, to be eliminated. Let the culture war begin!

The battle between those two "sides" serves the purpose of distracting people away from the truth, of enmeshing people in hopeless and idiotic political battles, and alienating and disempowering and disenfranchising the general public. Most people see both sides in that argument as bogus, and of the two liberalism looks more ridiculous.

There is a third alternative to right wing libertarianism - really an excuse for advancing corporate domination and serving the needs and interest of the wealthy and powerful few - and modern liberal or "progressive" libertarianism - really an excuse for advancing the social and cultural ideas of an upscale few.

That alternative is the traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party and the political left, as represented by the New Deal programs of FDR - public institutions and infrastructure for the protection of public resources - such as farming - for the benefit of all of the people.

That third alternative would have the support of 70% of the public - within weeks we could turn the whole thing around. Imagine that. So much to gain, for so little given. The resistance to this among the modern liberal activist community, and among the intellectuals nominally on the left, is the main obstacle to overcome.

Look at all of the political debates and you can see the same triangle effect - two "sides" to every issue, neither of which is supported by the public, neither of which is true, and a third point of view that is kept out of view.

The greatest triumph of the right wing propaganda is that they have defined us and we have accepted that and internalized it, they have written our program for political activism for us, gotten us to religiously follow the script they wrote for us. We are the Washington Generals to their Harlem Globetrotters.

[Tashca]

15. Very good.

Your posts are well thought out and sometimes long. I people take the time to read them. I would like to point out a paragraph in the above post if anyone is reading this post. It is:

That alternative is the traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party and the political left, as represented by the New Deal programs of FDR - public institutions and infrastructure for the protection of public resources - such as farming - for the benefit of all of the people.

That paragraph sums this up well....These principles are under attack from multi-national corporations. They would love nothing more than to gut the farm program...cut conservation programs like the CRP. ...cut food stamps and continue the payments to mega-farms.
I worry that the talk of shortages is going to do just that. Scare people into supporting massive cuts in conservation.....

Today...here in the heartland we are having heavy rainfall and flooding. I decided to drive and observe the damage. I see grass waterways carrying water the way they are suppose to....not dirt.
I see grass strips in low areas and field margins. I see grass filter strips along streams. I saw wetlands recently restored that are holding large volumes of water....working like they should. A small amount of erosion........no where near the devastation like we witnessed 10-20 years ago and before. I saw many acres of fragile soil that is currently enrolled in the CRP. Without the cover they would have been a disaster. All of this is partly subsidized by the taxpayer with the landowner picking up the rest. When these programs (conservation) first came into being I didn't believe in them. After witnessing what I saw today..........I hope we do not lose what we have gained.

[havocmom]

17. About those CRP fields: Home to the wildlife so many here SAY they support

Folks need to understand that there are FAMILIES where the buffalo used to roam. From Montana (where I am) to Oklahoma, the buffalo USED to range.

Now, when their numbers get too high for the delicate balance of the Yellowstone, some have to be culled and lots of liberals raise hell. Sorry, but until every land owner from my home to the old Empire Ranch in Arizona (the southwestern most point of the 'original' grass plains) is opened up so the buffalo can MIGRATE like they used to, we have to control the numbers.

Other wildlife is a bit easier to help and the CRP program does just that. Gives scattered habitat where land may not be 'productive' but is DAMNED productive when one considers all the good those 'empty fields' do for the environment, watershed, soils AND WILDLIFE. ALL liberal ideals!

Yep, a return to New Deal kind of thinking to find Win/Win solutions would be a HUGE progressive advance. It would also restore the credibility of the Democratic Party with it's traditional base. We would be saving family farms, providing some security for America by shoring up the food production HERE instead of relying of imports we don't even realize ARE imports.

Just after bush took office, the GOP controlled Congress repealed the Country of Origin labeling law that was in place at the time. THEN we were importing around 40% of our food. FORTY PERCENT! And that was when we were actually able to look and make a choice at the market. I see some labels on stuff now, so wonder if labeling has returned, but if so, how is it actually monitored? We sure have had some nasty stuff shipped in as foods the past couple of years.

The American farmer IS generally a corporation, privately held and struggling for existence. The CORPORATE FARMS people grumble about are actually huge multi-nationals that control WAY too much land and WAY too many politicians, here and abroad. Hell, after we invaded and broke Iraq, SOME corporations got a law passed there that Iraqi farmers could no longer save seeds! Yeah, we bombed the shit out of them, then force them to buy seeds from the corporations. That costs millions more than prudently setting aside some of each crop to parent next year's crop. Think about that next time you read a headline about 'insurgents'. If somebody did that to YOUR country, wouldn't you be pissed and fighting back too?

Well, they ARE doing that to your country, they are just a bit more covert about HOW they are doing that. Time to stop bitching about farmers and roll up our sleeves to lend farmers a hand.

When the shit really hits the fan here, we will be wishing there were more independent farmers still raising food near where we live. In a short time, it seems likely urban skills that used to pay well and seem glamorous are gonna be pretty damned frivolous. Time to get some callouses and learn NOT to take the land and its stewards for granted.

I yield the soapbox ;)

[Two Americas]

18. powerful

:applause:

The soap box is all yours. I could listen all night to this. Thanks.

[havocmom]

16. BRAVA!!!

Excellent! Thank you. Fantastic illustration and logic. We all fall victim to the jerking of knees we have been trained to be. Time to step back and look beyond the typical arguments. There are Win/Win solutions, but the Haves and the Have Mores want to keep us busy fighting each other.

[Andrea]

19. Everything you say here makes sense to me

and I've been able to follow this discussion in spite of the fact I have virtually no farming knowledge, but I have a question.

"The resistance to this among the modern liberal activist community, and among the intellectuals nominally on the left, is the main obstacle to overcome." So my question is this, where are the intellectuals that are truly (not just nominally) on the left?

[Two Americas]

20. insurgent labor and immigrant activists

The two places where I see the most vital and powerful things happening are in the immigrant rights movement, and in the insurgency within the labor movement.

We had millions of people in the streets challenging the ruling class and marching for justice and equality and at the same time white liberals were saying here "what oh what will it ever take to get people into the streets and resisting what is happening?" That was the most stunning and bizarre disconnection I have ever seen in politics.

Of course, we have a stellar model for political activism and clear thought and analysis right under our noses, rich and diverse and powerful, and in continual development for literally centuries, but ignore it - the African American writers and leaders and thinkers. Poor and working class whites suffer in this way from racism, because our tightly segregated society makes the contributions of African Americans unavailable - mostly invisible - to whites.

[bean fidhleir]

22. "So my question is this, where are the intellectuals that are truly (not just nominally) on the lef"

What does "on the left" mean, anyway? Are there dogmas to which one must subscribe ("Credo in unum Deum, Marxem omniscens")? Litmus tests one must pass? How does one recognize a leftist around here? Or anywhere?

[Two Americas]

24. not so complicated

The right wingers know what the battle is about, where the battle lines are, and what is at stake, and they act consistently, relentlessly and ruthlessly on behalf of their clients. They represent and advance and defend the interests and desires of the wealthy and powerful few, and work tirelessly to break down all legal protections and the public institutions that assist the general public and stand in the way of completely unbridled profiteering.

Democrats and liberals are in a constant state of confusion as to the nature of the battle, and are mostly missing in action as a result.

Being on the political left means representing and advancing and defending the interests and needs of all of those of us who must work for a paycheck or starve, against the ravages and assaults from the wealthy and powerful few.

Characterizing the left as some doctrinally pure dogmatic movement is a right wing framing of politics, and it leads many Democrats and liberals to reject and attack any and all left wing political ideas, which makes it difficult to form a strong people's movement and a true opposition party. The right wingers have made us afraid of our own shadow.

[bean fidhleir]

28. "the left defends the interests of workers"

Not that many leftists around here, then, by the look of things. I see plenty of support, often encoded, for the interests of the elites.

[Two Americas]

29. I agree with that

How come you're upset with me? (if you are)

[bean fidhleir]

32. I'm not upset with you. I just wanted to know what your definition of "leftist" is

because it doesn't seem to me is though there's an agreed one. To listen to Marxists, for example, you'd think they have an international patent on the term. "Get your pure leftism here, estate bottled. Look for our seal and accept no substitutes!"