The Indiana Law Blog posted on a a Washington Post story on agricultural welfare.
The money is substantial: $172 billion over the past ten years. The controls are weak: you don’t actually have to grow the crops that are subsidized. The protections are wasteful: The system pays farmers a subsidy to protect against low prices even when they sell crops at high prices, and it makes “emergency disaster payments” for crops that fail even as it provides subsidized insurance to protect against those failures. And, it disproportionately benefits those who are already wealthy.
The ILB pointed out an interactive map that the Washington Post provides. But if you really want to get to know your farming neighbors, I’d recommend the Environmental Working Group’s farm subsidy database.
The Washington Post provides this amazing statistic:
In 2005 alone, when pretax farm profits were at a near-record $72 billion, the federal government handed out more than $25 billion in aid, almost 50 percent more than the amount it pays to families receiving welfare.
From an electoral standpoint, agricultural welfare makes a great deal of sense. Citizens in agricultural areas have a lot more electoral influence per capita than do urban areas. Because each state gets two senators, regardless of the population of the state, citizens of more sparsely populated states get more bang for their ballot than citizens of more densely populated states.
But, if the Washington Post’s story is accurate, those who are concerned about bloated government programs and wasted tax dollars should concentrate on the agricultural welfare system before social welfare programs for the poor.
It fascinates me how greater mechanization and corporatization are routinely, correctly cited as forces working against smaller farmers, and yet farm subsidies are rarely included in the conversation. Simply put, the farmer who tries to eke out a living without subsidies on principle cannot compete with the farmer who receives them.
I had the experience of being an inspector on County Regulated Drains and had a farmer moan about the $75 permit fee. I had sympathy until he whipped out his checkbook with the register sporting a six-figure balance, and then I learned he collects massive subsidies for his substantial acreage.
If you want a truly fascinating display of hypocrisy, listen to a rural farmer who receives subsidies decry an urban single mother who receives food stamps. Awful hypocrisy.