| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: The Mythical Little Farm-Subsidy Receipients. |
Topic: The Mythical Little Farm-Subsidy Receipients.
| Author | Message |
| chucho | Posted – 6/3/2008 10:45:48 AM | show profile Good link on the myth that farm subsidies help American Gothic moms and pops make ends meet on th' family farm. It's funny 'cause nothing makes a conservative free marketer congressperson sound more "commie" than when you go after their farm subsidies (bribes to their constituency) -- most of which go right into the heart of red-state America. (To be fair, this issue has no partisan boundaries: any representative of any state that receives this public welfare is a commie when it comes to this.) But never mind, the real welfare queens are those urban people. Rural people (esp. large corn and cotton farming operations in places like Nebraska) NEVER take handouts from the guv-mint, just like red states naver take handout from form places like Taxachusetts to pay for the repairs to their roads thanks to their driving habits. http://farm.ewg.org/farm/dp_text.php A total of 1,234 recipients collected direct payment subsidies worth $120,000 or more (costing taxpayers $226 million total), and 149 recipients got more than $250,000 in direct payments ($51.5 million total cost). The top 10 percent of direct payment subsidy recipients in 2007 collected about 60 percent of the government money. While direct payments are limited to $40,000 per person ($80,000 per married couple), large subsidized farming operations with complex, interlocking business organizations and multiple owners routinely enable individuals to collect up to $80,000 apiece each year in direct payment subsidies under USDA rules governing subsidies for partnerships, corporations, joint ventures and trust. If the House version of the direct payment provision is adopted, the maximum payment will be increased from $40,000 to $60,000 per person per year ($120,000 per married couple). The top direct payment recipient in 2007 was a Sandridge Partners, a complex business of interlocking companies, trusts and individual owners with its business office in Sunnyvale, California, a suburban community in Silicon Valley south of San Francisco better known for high-tech firms and venture capitalists. Sandridge, which USDA records show operates in four counties, collected $1,064,134 in direct payment subsidies in 2007 for seven different crops, but most of the subsidy was for cotton. Two other large California-based operations with multiple layers and owners ranked 3 and 4 nationwide. A business designated "Dist 108 Farms" in USDA records, located in Arbuckle, California, collected $730,720 in direct payments in 2007, mostly for rice; for farms in Colusa and Yolo counties. The Martori Family General Partnership collected $683,353 in direct payment subsidies in 2007, mostly for wheat and cotton. Direct payment subsidies are provided without regard to the economic need of the recipients or the financial condition of the farm economy. Established in 1996, direct payments were originally meant to wean farmers off traditional subsidies that are triggered during periods of low prices for corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, rice and other crops. In debate over the 2007/2008 farm bill, the farm subsidy lobby has insisted the payments continue over the next five years, even if crop prices and net farm income remain high. |
| chucho | Posted – 6/3/2008 10:52:03 AM | show profile PS: WASHINGTON (AP) ? President Bush signed a 10-year, $190 billion farm bill Monday that expands subsidies to growers, turning aside criticism from fellow Republicans who called the measure a budget-busting step backward in agriculture planning. "It's not a perfect bill, I know that. But you know, no bill ever is," Bush said with a chuckle. "There's no such thing as a perfect bill. Or otherwise, I'd get to write every one of them." ** But to be fair to the prez: he vetoed the $290 billion farm subsidy bill sent to him by Congress, which was overidden. ** It's worth noting that while Europe is making some progress in scaling back its unfair agriculture free trade policies (and facing protests), the US is moving in the opposite direction, forcing growers in the Third World to compete with subsidized agricultural products (mainly corn, cotton, soy, barley and rice) from the USA. Where the free market there? |
