Anyone interested in the extent the government is involved in farming can go to www.ewg.org and click on the farm subsidy database and see how much money people in your county get from the government. It was a real eye opener for me, their are about 10000 people in this county and 1300 getting farm subsidies. This web site names names and shows amounts collected for the last five years.

-- fred (fred@mddc.com), January 04, 2002

Answers

Proverbs 28:25

-- Kevin (kevinmail@earthlink.net), January 04, 2002.

Been there and was completely disgusted.... I had been wondering why our "super farmer" next door was running a construction business and sending his wife to work while farming 1200 acres... nice hobby ... at least the hillbillys down the road with the trans-am collection are not nearly as deep into my wallet (and I always know I'm welcome to have a beer with them on a hot day).

-- scott (sbitzer@columbus.rr.com), January 04, 2002.

Just thought that I would add my 2 cents here....... we worked for some of those "farmers". It was very obvious that they farmed the government. We refered to them as "welfare farmers" because they could not make it in the real world. Sure enough, when the sacred peanut program was axed---- within 2 years they were bankrupt. Even lawn mowers were repossesed. Luckily, we had moved on to bigger and better thing. Unfortunatley, it was with another one of the big names on this list. He made a deliberate effort to make sure that the part of the farm we worked at did NOT make a profit. It would affect how much program money he got. You might also like to know that this individual has his name listed, his company name listed , his farm name listed, and his kids listed ( who don't farm---it is all a front). Each one of these got huge sums of money. Also, many of these guys have farms in two or more counties with different farm names so that they get even more than it looks like. We now manage a farm for another fellow on this list. I am happy to report that he actually could and does farm and is a good one. Gov't has seduced alot of these guys and it is a huge mess. I don't like it and neither do alot of farmers but they feel that they couldn't make it without them.

-- Tana McCarter (mcfarm@totelcsi.net), January 04, 2002.

How interesting. Our state land grant university; the University of Illinois; the one with the big ag program; is number 8 on Illinois list of recipients with $1,685,102.75 from '96 to 2000. Quite a bit farther down the list is our state secretary of agriculture with $292,109.86 in the same time period.

I'm laughing on the inside, really.

-- Polly (tigger@moultrie.com), January 04, 2002.

Farms? Go past that. I work for computer enhanceded research and development. ER&D. 4 yrs of college and take down 90k, all paid by good ole Uncle Sam! I be only the lowly AA at min. wage, not covered by the grant!

-- Kathy (catfish201@hotmail.com), January 04, 2002.

Well, we are one lone farm that refuses to take ANY kind of money or funds from anybody, except for purchases made here from us for a commodity bought directly from us, the farmers that put the commodity up!!!

When the county asks what we farm, or the acreage under production, etc., etc., we tell them none of their damn business.

Farm welfare??? No thank you!!! We believe in a totally free market system, in farming or ANY business practice, and we blame ALL the faults and problems facing todays farmers on that damned farm welfare!!!

-- Annie Miller in SE OH (annie@1st.net), January 04, 2002.

Here's another 2 cents, for what it's worth. In defense of farmers in general: the way I understand it, there are several factors that need to be considered in regards to these so-called govt. handouts. 1. Farmers now have to compete (in a world market)with ag producers in other countries who are also heavily subsidized by their govts. 2. The more acreage a farmer plants and the more food he produces, the higher his costs are likely to be (like so, his subsidy payments). Have you priced combines and king-sized tractors lately which are necessary for such large-scale production? We are talking BIG bucks. Not to mention land, irrigation, insect control and fertilizer costs. 3. If our farmers go under, who will feed all the people? It's likely those of us who participate in this forum wouldn't have a problem, but what about the city folks? 4. Do we want to become dependent upon other countries for our food supply? How smart would that be? We are already importing more that we should be which has also contributed to the problem.....In conclusion: Granted, if the govt. hadn't gotten into the farmer's business years ago, maybe supply and demand would have taken care of everything. And granted, there is some abuse of the subsidy programs (the govt. always seems to leave loopholes)and yes, some of our tax money is being misspent. What else is new? Write your congressmen and senators! I never knew one farmer who was happy with government interference in their business or who wouldn't have preferred to receive a fair price for their product rather than govt. subsidies. I worked with rice and grain farmers for 30 years in south Texas and the majority were salt-of-the-earth, hard working family men doing what they loved most. Sorry if some of you have encountered some bad apples. I'll climb down from my soap box and hope for a few supportive responses....Pam

-- Pam (pam1@awesomenet.net), January 04, 2002.

I know that these programs are abused but I looked up my farm neighbor on the site and for his small beef operation he's received around 22,000 over the last 4 years. I this has kept him from selling out to developers to me it's well worth it just to keep the land in agriculture instead of "growing houses in the fields".

-- linda skountzos (skountzos6@netscape.net), January 04, 2002.

no surprise but kind of interesting to note that I saw quite a few familiar names on there but none amish.

-- Dave (something@somewhere.com), January 05, 2002.

Dave; I didn't see any Amish farmers that I know on the list, either. However, I did see some names I know that are only a couple of generations removed from the church.

Pam;

1. Please check the level of taxation in those other countries who subsidize their farmers. Find out if they have the level of subsidies we do. I hear a lot of stories about the mythical $40 loaf of bread we will have if our farm subsidies stop. The money is coming from us, the taxpayers, either way; whether you spend the $40 for a loaf of bread, or spend it paying taxes. And what of the subsidies that are being paid to farmers for set-aside, CRP ground. If farmers quit being paid to not produce; then they will start producing again.

2. Big farmers. We call these guys "ground hogs". They farm so much ground that they "have" to have huge equipment; that compacts the soil, causing multiple problems - beneficial bilogical life suffers, percolation decreases, crop roots cannot penetrate, etc... They don't have time to wait for the proper soil temps and conditions; so they plant too early, increasing crop-loss payments; they work soil that is too wet, again damaging the soil structure; they don't have time to use tillage or other controls, so they use mostly chemical controls for insects and weeds, also chemical fertilizers - all of which damage biological soil life and drain off into water supplies. Shall we discuss the ripping out of fence rows so that there is room to use that huge equipment - not considering the loss of windbreaks for storms, trees to produce oxygen, wildlife cover, and cover to prevent all the topsoil from blowing into the next state? There is no cycle to their production - it's like stamping out widgets in a factory. Bring in materials (seed, chemicals) take out finished goods (grain, etc). They need to work smarter - not bigger. And leave something for the future generations to work with. And let's speak of those future generations - where do you suppose the land that all these big farmers farm, came from? It sure as heck didn't all come from little old widow ladies that didn't have any family to take over their farms when they passed on! How many other farmers, or people who want to farm, have been put out of business or can't get into the business because they can't compete for land price wise with these guys who are getting the money handed to them?

3. Not all of our farmers would go under. Some, yes; all, no. The ones who remain; and the ones who would take over the land of those who go under, would be able to produce more than enough commodities to feed all the people you are so concerned about. The problem is not; and never has been, production here in the US. The problem is getting what is produced to where it's consumed; and in a consumable manner. Yes, there would be shortages. No, you wouldn't have all the foods that you are currently used to having available year round. Is this really such a bad thing?

4. See #3. How much food or food products (grain, etc) do we ship out compared to what we ship in? What are we shipping in? Cars, clothing, plastic junk...

I started working toward my ag degree in '78. You know, right before the land boom and bust - when interest rates went through the ceiling. All these instructors were hollering at us "gotta get big, more land, yadda, yadda." I remember one telling the class that one of the smartest things they could do was to get married, because any woman put out to work could earn enough to make your interst payment! I also remember my copies of Organic Gardening and Farming and The Mother Earth News being called pinko-commie rags. I went back and finished up my degree in '92; and things hadn't changed much. More emphasis was placed on how to play the commodities market than how to produce crops/stock. Then we were told that it was okay to lose money, for instance, on raising hogs; because, even though you showed a loss at the end of the year, the production of income looked good during the year on your cash flow sheet for the banker. Uh-huh. Right. Losing money is good.

We raised commercial apples, peaches and strawberries, plus annual crops for over 20 years. We took NO government monies to do this. My parents and then I, all worked at off farm jobs. We supported our own endeavours. I still have the berries, tho not nearly as many as in the past. We currently raise a few acres of grain each year, along with food crops for us and our families; plus enough to share with others. Most of our equipment is older than me. It still runs and functions because we take care of it, rather than succumbing to "shiny paint fever".

In his 1980 book "Two Acre Eden"; Gene Logsdon wrote the following:

"The farmer finds that he can make ends meet only by producing more per man-hour than her did before. The most effective way to produce more per man-hour is to farm more land, which drives half the neighbors out of business, thereby providing cities with more people than they can handle. Then America sits back pompously bragging to the world how one of our wonderfully efficient farmers can produce enough food for 58 people. Leaving the 58 presumably free to follow more owrthwhile pursuits, like, for instance, blowing up colleges, fighting someone else's wars, and running for public offices that nobody needs. Then to top off the whole frosty business, we find that millions of our own Americans suffer from malnutrition; some don't get enough food, some don't get the right food, and even the well-fed majority is eating an alarming quantity of additives, preservatives, and other chemicals that may be harmful. A great many thoughtful people are now wondering if all the problems of our time aren't somehow linked together in some fuzzy sort of way, oversimplistically stated by an old farmer I know: "We've worked up quite a lather. There ain't enough honest jobs left to go around.""

Subsidies turn farming into a dishonest job.

-- Polly (tigger@moultrie.com), January 05, 2002.

Thanks a lot Pam. Your words mean a lot.

Polly, I disagree with most all of your numbered points, but the discussion would get too long for a point/counterpoint. :) I do agree with your paragraph after point #4 tho.

The govt wants control of agriculture, and one of the best control methods are these subsidies. They won't go away. Govt also wants to give urban people cheap food. Subsidies will _not_ go away.

I wish the govt would get out of ag. That was the deal - the 7 year ATMA payments, and no more subsidies. Then prices dropped 40% on world markets, and so they dumped LDP payments on us, which forces the major cereal crop farmers to go for max production again. Bummer. I wish the ATMA plan had worked out. If we quit cold-turkey, land will go to more of the larger farms, and production will shift to South America and other forign imports. Do you really want to accelerate plowing and agland in these areas? But, as a farmer, I wish the govt would get out of agriculture. I read over & over on this forum about people buying 15 acres, cutting down the trees, putting in any old septic system - if any at all, planting & grazing in wetlands, how to kill cattails, and so on. You folks do realize that _all_ of that is totally illegal where I live in Minnesota, and farming is highly regulated & inspected for pollution, runoff, chemical application, sodbusting, feedlot runoff (more that 10 cattle makes a 'feedlot'), tree cutting, building permits, septics, drainage systems, etc.... There have been a _lot_ of laws since 1987 controlling farming practices - you are familiar with the term 'HEL'? Highly Erodable Land - farmers need to have a farm practice on record, & follow it, to prevent erossion on highly erodable land, or you don't get your subsidy. Can't tile or plow wetlands. Can't cut down trees or plow up sod/ meadow lands that weren't in ag production. Those govt subsidies are tied into all this, so we won't be getting rid of them...

I see some conflicting critisisms here. Anti-big farms because they use chemicals and produce a lot of runoff; but actually the big guys can afford the new no-till machinery that drastically reduces runoff. You can either plow the ground black for weed control (erosion & runoff) or spray for weeds and cut back on tillage. Some seem to be confused on this, you need to pick one or the other! :) Then you're against CRP programs, but those are to save wildlife habitat, not much to do with producing ag products?

Francis Childs is a farmer that uses chemicals, 4 times the fertilizer, tillage, and has _improved_ his soil over the decades while setting corn yield records. Interesting reading, look him up on a web search engine. Not all ag production methods are bad.

As a farmer, I could not follow what Polly is saying and produce _any_ crop, I hear her wanting it both ways? Nothing personal, but can't make sense of it? Thanks.

--->Paul

-- paul (ramblerplm@hotmail.com), January 05, 2002.

My points might make more sense if you read them as answers to Pam's numbered points; as that's what they were based on.

Yep, I'll admit to wanting things both ways; but I'm realisitic enough to know they won't be. Doesn't mean I can't bitch about it. And do what I can to make sure that I don't increase what I consider to be the problem.

It's nice that Minnasota enforces it's regulations; such is not the case everywhere. And some practices aren't regulated - plowing clear up the the road ditches so that the rainwater from your fields, and topsoil, all drain into the ditches and roads for instance. Driving home from work in a thunderstorm and having to call Dad to bring a tractor to pull my car out of the mud - in the middle of the road - made it a little personal. Indiscriminate use of pesticides and herbicides applied when conditions are unfavorable - for instance the crop duster that did the beans next door when the wind was too high and hit my U-Pick strawberry patch along with it. Whoops, there I go, taking it personally again. Well water contaminated with ag chemicals to the point where it isn't safe to drink. Dang, more of my personal problems.

Not just the big boys can afford the environmentally sane equipment. Our SWCD rents out no till drills, for example; and a lot of the people that I've met at sustainable farming conferences build their own equipment. No, not all ag production methods are bad; and while I have not yet had the opportunity to read about Mr. Child, I will seek information on him as soon as I get time. I'm sure that you've taken the opportunity to look at some sustainable farming web sites as well.

CRP programs. Oh my. I griped about fence rows being pulled out in regards to wildlife cover; so you think I should approve of row crop ground being put into CRP ground because it provides cover; is that correct? I would probably think it was wonderful - IF - my tax dollars weren't paying for it. We leave fence rows, create brush piles and plant feed crops for the critters; but we do it with OUR money; money that we've worked to earn.

I, too, believe that if subsidies were cut out that we would see fewer but larger agribusiness concerns. I also believe that we would see a multitude of small farms springing up - or perhaps folks would just start to notice the ones that are already here. And many of the folks who are farming small acreages would have the impetus to increase the scope - that's scope, not size - of their operations. Including city folk - read "A Patch of Eden" by Patricia Hynes (available thru Chelsea Green Publishing co.) to see what a bunch of inner city folks have accomplished.

Now, I gotta go finish the lunch dishes and go chaparone some cheerleaders at a basketball game before I go work the night shift. Then, I need to take a nap and alter some dance team uniforms before I get a chance to look up Mr. Child's info; so that I can learn about him. Or, in plain English - I won't be back for a couple of days.

-- Polly (tigger@moultrie.com), January 05, 2002.

I ran that site for the area I just moved away from, the names were mostly known to me. One is a $180.00 per attorney, another is a power company employee making $27.00 an hour, 5 are known millionaires and major land owners who will never see hunger this lifetime. And these people are taking money? What do they do to qualify? Or not do?

-- mitch hearn (moopups@citlink.net), January 05, 2002.

The one name that got to me on the list from our county is a guy with an address in Canada. Yes that is right. Canada. It appears our government is paying someone who is not a citizen of the country farm subsidies. That is insane. I have nothing against Canada or anybody who lives there, but this is where the line needs to be drawn.

Talk to you later.

-- Bob in WI (bjwick@hotmail.com), January 05, 2002.

We have farmed most of our lives and also worked out when we were not. When we had the cow dairy several yrs ago, many of the big industrial farms as I call them, were receiving nice subsidies and the rest of us smaller ones were left hurting financially. I don't really have a opinion one way or another about them. But I do feel this way:

Someone referred to it as "Farm Welfare" how true, seems the farmers who really need the assistance cannot get it, and those who don't do. Its all part of our government trying to keep its finger in the pie and controlling free enterprise farming. Personally we do not want the government in any way participating in or supporting our enterprise here. I am amazed by how many of our neighbors, etc in Lunenburg County VA made a nice little cushion from their subsidies. And, I was chatting on yahoo IM last night with a friend in northern VA when I read the post on this. I sent her the link, she was amazed by how many different reasons or areas of farming you can get subsidies in.

-- Bernice (geminigoats@yahoo.com), January 05, 2002.

The basic problem with the subsisdies is that they hide the cost of what we pay for food items. The goverment wants control for this purpose. A population which eats cheaply (this is preceived by us because the cost of the subsidies are hidden from the food cost) is not likely to be unhappy.

You cannot pay someone to produce nothing and or at a higher level then he would make on the market.

Subsidies cause planting of crops and harvest because it guarntees a price even if the market has an over production. Common sense would tell one there is to much wheat so I just won't plant it this year thereby lowering the surplus and raising the price.

Milk in the mid 60's sold for around $7.00 per hundred weight. A dairy farmer today is only getting around $10.00 after deducting all the charges associated with the milk programs. A car at that time period cost around $3,000 new today the same car is $20,000 cannot anyone see what subsidies have done to the farmer? They have not been allowed nor the market to work in a free economy.

So Those who love socialism which farm subsidies are look to Russia and see what it is like. Further many countries do subsidise go ahead let them they will collapse upon themselves from the tax burden.

-- William Rutter (wrutter@uniontel.net), January 05, 2002.

My wool check for 459 pounds of wool came in at $24.59. After the state agency that promotes the use of wool gets their cut, I ended up with $20.00.

Now our government has passed NAFTA which means that us citizens that raise agricultural products are now expected to live like our worldly neighbors...tin huts with no vehicle or shoes, etc.

In fairness the citizens of this country that have been hurt by NAFTA need to be compensated.

It's really quite simple, and is not really a subsidy for the farmer as much as compensation for the situation the government caused through NAFTA. Hope that corporate taxes on the mega bucks that the large corporations make through NAFTA pay for the subsidies, but our current administration seems to be reducing rather than increasing those taxes.

-- Gary from MN (hpysheep@midwestinfo.com), January 06, 2002.

Mitch, I agree with you. I don't know if they still do it, but it was a big thing to invest in grapes (wineries) in CA as in "you get the benefits of farm subsidies etc., but hire out the work". Big thing for people who want to say they are part owner of a vineyard. That is not what I would think of as "actively farming".

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), January 07, 2002.

Wow! This was a real eye opener for me too! I have a question, maybe some of you can answer for me. How do husbands and wifes each get paid for the same farm? The husband that I know received $193 thousand and his wife received $157 thousand in the same period, for the same farm. They brought in $109 thousand in the year 2000 alone. I really don't see how they could have earned this. Thanks for your help!

-- cowgirlone (cowgirlone47@hotmail.com), January 07, 2002.