The Senate Finance Committee has approved a bill that would provide a $5.1 billion permanent disaster relief trust fund for farmers. The idea behind the trust fund is the sense that "Farmers are entitled to a secure source of disaster relief..."
Over the past 20 years, some 60% of existing disaster relief funds have gone to farmers in the same four drought-prone states. Should the same farmers who consistently fail to produce crops in the same drought-prone states be rewarded for doing so with a permanent trust fund? Why or why not?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/27/AR2007102701076.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I do not believe farmers who continually fail to produce crops should be rewarded with a permanent trust fund.
Their lobbyists must do one heck of a job promoting the Midwestern American dream to Congress; if this situation involved any other industry, the bill wouldn't fly!
Just imagine if a new drug came out and cured people from all illness. Would the government set up a trust fund for doctors who no longer had a practice? Or, would they ask them to transfer their skill set to another occupation?
By allowing people to rely on the government for permanent support, it debilitates the government's response to emergency; further, the government becomes more reactionary as tax money becomes tied up in lost causes.
I think this is another example of good intentions gone awry. I understand the sentiment behind backing up struggling farmers who face unexpected disaster. As the editorial points out however, lack of rain in drought prone areas isn’t exactly unexpected.
The question becomes should we continue to subsidize farmers for their crops, even if they are failing to produce viable goods over a period of time? And Can Congress perform better oversight over farm entitlements?
First, I am not encouraged to see a trust fund established in an already bloated and highly unpopular farm bill. The farm bill has been criticized by governments around the world, who have been pressuring the United States to limit subsidies. The Democratic leaders in the House, after gaining the majority last year, promised to make changes to the farm bill – that has yet to happen. It does make sense, as the editorial again points out, that we all owe something to the people who struggle to produce the materials we use everyday. But when have we gone too far?
Secondly, it doesn’t appear that Congress has or is willing to, perform the necessary oversight to assure that the farmers who DO need the money actually receive it.
I do think encouraging farmers to purchase crop insurance is a good idea – it’s one that states have been encouraging people to do across policy areas (healthcare for instance).
And I agree w/ Arden that the farmers lobby has done a good job of influencing the right Senators to get this bill rammed through.
As a taxpayer though (and even a Democrat) we need to address the question about farm subsidies – “agricultural welfare” – because we are wasting money and losing face.
And each of us is footing the bill.
I don't agree that there should be a permanent trust fund. I think it acknowledges that there is a good chance those farmers aren't going to produce the amount of crops they want, and when they don't, they don't have to worry because the government (taxpayers) will foot the bill.
I can be in favor of a "permanent disaster relief fund," because disasters do happen. However, when I hear the word "disaster," I assume that the event has two characteristics: First, no one saw the disaster coming. Two, the ingenuity of man was unable to deal with the occurence (a force of nature).
So, when I think of what happens to these drought-stricken farmers, "disaster" is not a word that comes to mind. In their case, it's not a disaster because everyone knows that there is a pretty good possibility of a drought happening. I'm not saying a disaster has to fit both criteria, I'm saying if it doesn't fit the first time after time, one has to question if people should really be farming there.
This article made me ask myself if this is really disaster relief or if it's charity.
Disaster relief for the agricultural industry is necessary. Agricultural welfare is not. If there are farmers who are floating year to year on due to these farming subsidies because the unfavorable climate conditions. Now, let me defend Oklahoma for a minute. Inspite of "unfavorable weather conditions," Oklahoma remains the 4th largest producer of wheat in the United States. Agriculture adds approximately $6.1 billion to the state GDP. It is one of the largest industries in the state, following oil/natural gas, and aerospace. That is a about 83,000 farms. I'd say they are far from needing a new skill set. Someone has found a way to make Oklahoma the 4th largest wheat producing state, "unfavorable climate" or not. I also think that the money set aside specifically as agricultural welfare would be better used in developing better irrigation systems for states that are plagued with dry weather. Or fast response systems for natural distasters that threaten crops (among other things). The subsidies are not there for a free ride for farmers that produce a good crop every five years. But it does make sense that states such as Oklahoma, Montana, and Texas experience harsher conditions when producing agricultural goods and require a higher percentage of the subsidies. They are threatened by the same natural disasters that the rest of the US is threatened with, and they also have harsh climates to weather (pun intended.) In the summer of 2006, Oklahoma and parts of Texas were plagued with wildfires due to the lack of rain. They did not lose their crops becuase they were unable to provide the water needed, they lost crops because they were burned. Disaster? Or Casualty because of the location they choose to take root? The idea of disaster relief for those in the farming industry is a good idea, but the execution has been poor. And this bill is only making it easier for the poor execution to be exploited. I view this bill as an example of laziness on the part of congress. As Charlie said, if the could, or were more willing, in my opinion to perform better oversight over farm entitlements, this would not even come close to passing.
There are two reasons why the farmers have this kind of support:
A very strong lobby in Washington with powerful interests on their side.
Senators such as Max Baucus of Montana and Kent Conrad of North Dakota, are Democrats who get elected in reliable Republican states. They need to deliver the goods in order to get re-elected. This bill fits their personal political agendas.
These farmers should continue to get disaster relief.
First, farmers around the world, particularly in the European Union, are heavily subsidized. Countries such as Canada and the United States must compete with this so that American farmers can remain competitive.
Second, you cannot decide which farmers get relief and support. A farmer is a farmer, period. Once you start changing definitions or who can qualify for aid, you are moving in a direction that will hurt the overall agricultural agenda in the United States.
Third, The United States must have the ability to grow and produce its own food. It cannot rely on one region of the US or foreign sources for food.
Fourth, is this pure aid or is there another purpose to this farming agenda? Is research being conducted? What valuable information is being collected on climate, soil and crops.
Fifth is these states need stable population bases. This aid will keep people in these states, working the land. Without this aid, people might leave these states, putting public services in jeopardy.
The reality is that in the complicated world of Washington politics, nothing is simple and straght forward. There is always more to the story.
I'm going to start off by mentioning that I'm a generation removed from farmers and my family still owns farmland in Iowa. That being said, I think that the trust fund is actually a step in the right direction. I'm not going to argue that farmers should be rewarded for beating their heads against a wall on unfertile land. I believe that were justified in seeking government assistance up until the point at which it became clear that their land would simply not produce. At that point, the responsible thing for all parties to do would be to transition them off of government assistance.
In fact, that is what the trust fund attempts to accomplish, albeit belatedly. It provides a system by which the current reliance on government assistance will gradually be disincentivized.
For me, it comes down to a matter of conscience. Farmers are the backbone of this country and without them, our balance of trade would be even further skewed. While there are undoubtedly some cases in which individuals have abused the current system, that does not mean that honest, hard-working families should be punished for their inability to produce. A number of external factors, including global warming, have crippled US farmers in recent years. Instead of punishing them for their unfortunate situation, the federal government has chosen a more compassionate path in gradually moving them off of government assistance and thereby discouraging future generations from making the same mistakes.
Setting up a permanent disaster fund is not smart policy, because it takes away funds that could be needed in the event of a real emergency. This is not to say that the flooding that does occur periodically in those areas is not an emergency, but if these natural disasters do not occur in any given year, then the funding allotted to those states was done so unnecessarily.
In the years where no disaster occurs in those areas, the people who suffer from Hurricanes or other natural disasters in other parts of the country could be adversely affected and may not receive the assistance that they need.
A better system would be to set aside more funding for natural disasters that could be distributed efficiently to any affected areas, not just to those in the heavily agricultural states.
I’ve spent a good portion of my life living in Texas and there are a lot of farmers there and drought is common. Unfortunately, farmers take a risk every year that their crops will be lost to natural disasters; Florida farmers face hurricanes, California farmers face wild fires, northern farmers face harsh winters, and southern farmers face harsh summers. I’m not saying farmers shouldn’t be subsidized or avoid areas prone to natural disasters (I doubt many oranges are grown outside of Florida and California), but this program seems to be full of good intentions but bad execution. When farmers start bringing n more subsidies than crops, then we have a problem. This money would be better spent on projects that benefit farmers in the long term like improved irrigation for drought prone areas or develop crops that can withstand environmental extremes. This program seems to do nothing more than reward unproductive farmers while allowing members of Congress in those areas to claim they are supporting disaster relief.
This is an example of the disproportionate influence senators from rural states have in the Senate. It's unbelievable that places like Wyoming and North Dakota are dictating the national agenda, while D.C. doesn't even get a vote in Congress.
That being said, I agree with Earl that we must remain competitive with the rest of the world when it comes to agriculture. We don't want to be dependent on the rest of the world for food, so it's essential to have a strong farming community.
However, instead of paying farmers to stay on infertile land, we should encourage farmers to relocate to places that make more sense. Over the next 50 years, people living in what used to be the "bread basket" of the U.S. will continue losing their crops because of rising temperatures. Relocating the the pacific northwest, where farmers will have much better luck, would be the wisest way to promote sustainability.
A permanent "disaster relief fund" is not a bad idea, in theory, but creating longer-term solutions is a better way to create effective public policy.
Post a Comment