The Post of the Day goes after taxpayer-subsidized farms
By Dan
Note from Dan: Shrillary posted this on this thread Monday. Good stuff!
There are fewer and fewer small farms run by “mom and pop” in the US. A “small” farm as categorized by the U.S. government is that which has a gross income of under $250,000; large family farm(gross income $250,000 – $500,000) and very large (over $500,000 in income).
Few small farmers and “micro” farmers receive subsidies – in fact, most small farmers (which is a category my husband and I fall into) get minimum technical or financial help. Very large and large farmers consume most of the $240 billion farm subsidies – without any real oversight – they encourage the hogs to keep their heads in the public trough.
I, for one, would like to see farm subsidies completely eliminated. When the government pays farmers to plant or not plant something is very wrong. Providing somewhere around 75% of farm funds to these agribusinesses has become acceptable to the public, as subsidies are cloaked in nice sounding terms like “family farm” aid.
However, “subsidies ” are concentrated in the hands of a small number of large farming operations.” If asked, most Americans would support subsidies for farmers, but they are hoodwinked into the delusion of family farms like “American Gothic” receiving abundant aid, which I can assure you we [small farms] are not.
In fact, “in 2011 more than 10,000 individual farming operations have received federal crop insurance premium subsidies ranging from $100,000 to more than $1 million apiece.”
When money is dolled out, rarely is there any determinant or reasoning for who will receive funding. “The subsidies go to large operators with no conservation strings attached to protect water and soil, no means testing, and no payment limit on how much a farm business can collect.”
Why aren’t republicans demonizing these agri-businesses as “moochers” or “welfare farmers”? Why not cut out the cost of subsidies from the budget and return it to the revenue side? These very large farm operations are assuredly addicted to the public trough as any other subsidized business. Hhowever, they should be allowed to go through withdrawal – stand on their own to either succeed or fail. It’s time to remove the “needle” of public funding from the proverbial arm of the largest agri-businesses.
citations from: http://farm.ewg.org/
December 4, 2012 - 11:00 AM
ConAgra doesn’t need any of my tax dollars.
I wonder how much the corporate farms contribute to political coffers.
This article sure opens my eyes. I could never figure out why if the farmers get subsidies, why were all the family farms closing down. Now I see. Like everything else, the Republicans are willing to only help the wealthy businesses (large farms). If I made $500,000 a year I wouldn’t need a subsidy.
“Why aren’t republicans demonizing these agri-businesses as “moochers” or “welfare farmers”?”
Why aren’t Democrats? Are they a party favorable to moochers and welfare farmers?
#4 Wow, you really didn’t get Debbie’s post, did you, Henry?
i am a fossil fuel burning, gun toten, right wing wacko BUT my taxes dont need to fund conagra, gm, amtrack or any company that cant fend for itself
Debbie, a LOT. Because they need to buy their seat at the table when the FDA decides how much pesticides are acceptable in our food supply.
“Why is it that if you take advantage of a tax deduction, you’re a smart businessman, but if you take advantage of a program that feeds you when you’re hungry, you’re a moocher?” Jon Stewart
Another aspect, and possibly the worst, of big corporate agri-business is the way it can lead to dangerous limitations in crop bio-diversity. The most egregious current example is genetically engineered seed of staple crops, which are used to eliminate other types of these staples with Wal-Mart type ruthlessness. Monsanto’s seed monopoly has grown so powerful that they control the genetics of nearly 90% of five major commodity crops including corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and sugar beets.
This also goes to the “conservative” SCOTUS rulings that allow for virtually unlimited private control and commercial exploitation of genetics, which could become a harbinger of issues on the control of human genotypes.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16844.cfm
Carl Rosen,
How do you feel about these federal and state subsidies? You are paying for them too.
“From 2008 to 2010, the 280 most profitable U.S. corporations sheltered half of their profits from taxes, thanks to tax subsidies totaling nearly $224 billion, according to a 2011 analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice. A dozen large companies, including Exxon-Mobil, Boeing, and General Electric, reaped $175 billion in profits, but their combined tax rate was negative 1.4 percent, thanks to $64 billion in subsidies from oil depletion allowances, write-offs from overseas profits, and other loopholes, according to the study.”
“The highest three-year average effective rate paid by any of the 12 large corporations in the Citizens for Tax Justice study was 14.2 percent—less than many middle class families.”
“Total state and local tax subsidies to business add up to about $70 billion a year.” These subsidies didn’t just come about by accident—at least 30 Fortune 500 firms pay their lobbyists more than they pay in taxes.”
The source for my data is below. Federal subsidies to business, via tax breaks or direct subsidies, totals more than $90 per year. Eliminating them would save $900 billion over ten years. That is a start on solving the budget deficit issue.
The only “entitlement programs” the Republicans want to talk about is Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid. I think that if we want to trim Social security, Medicare & Medicaid we need to cut corporate welfare first.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/04/05/how-everyone-else-pays-for-big-businesss-tax-breaks
“…totals more than $90 per year.”
Sorry that should say $90 billion per year.
#5 Gdad, Henry was referring to Shrillary’s post.
#7 Kristen, I’m sure you’re right. It’s also why they are still receiving the subsidies.
This is a topic about which I am passionate and Warren makes the point that our current system maximizes profits by creating a monoculture of genetically engineered crops. The variety of foodstuffs that we produce has declined dramatically while the ability to create ever greater yields of a fixed set of relatively profitable crops is the current status. Now, I am not afraid of genetically modified food, but I think nature itself might create some harsh consequences for acre upon acre of plants that essentially cloned. Variability in nature is the stuff of survival.
There are other aspects of agribusiness that I find objectionable as well. If you’ve ever seen a colorado feed lot in which cattle stand ankle deep in their own waste, you would quickly come to question the methods of meat production as well. Let us not speak of large scale processing methods. Both of these observations made me give up beef for a long period of time in my life.
I don’t know if Congress is interested in the wholesale overhaul of this system. What I do know is there is a fairly active grass roots move afoot to circumvent the system and to turn toward local producers who provide delicious, fresh and wholesome products and so in a manner that is both sustainable and humane. Did I mention that what they produce is very high quality stuff.
Here comes the shameless plug. If you are interested in locally produced food:
wwww.roanokevalleylocavore.com
The above links to a directory of about 150 producers of local food.
And if you want to keep up with the scene on local social media…
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Roanoke-Valley-Locavore/350731487878?ref=hl
Like me on facebook! I would like to have 1000 likes by January 1st.
#12 Right you are, I meant Shrillary. And Henry still didn’t get it.
Done Mike Scott, thanks!
Right on Ron, they never complain about THAT welfare!
Sandi,
They don’t want to keep the “job creators” from creating jobs, don’tcha know.