Jack Hedin, an organic farmer
in Minnesota, tells a compelling story of how he fell victim to the
federal
farm subsidy program. Hedin’s article “My Forbidden Fruits (and
Vegetables,”
appeared in the March 1st edition of The New York Times. He rented 25
acres
from two conventional farmers to obtain more space to meet
the rising demand for locally produced organic fruits and vegetables.
After
plowing under the alfalfa that was growing there and planting
watermelons,
tomatoes and vegetables, he learned in July of that growing season that
the
land he had rented was subsidized for corn. He would have to pay the
full
retail cash value of the crop planted on the land in question as a
penalty for
growing something other than corn (or the other four kinds of heavily
subsidized crops) on this particular piece of land.
Hedin suggested the blame lay
with large growers in California and Florida who would benefit from the
demise
of the small farmers like himself. They have courted the politicians
who helped
the farm subsidy program to evolve into the largest form of
taxpayer-supported,
corporate welfare our nation has known. In his
article, Hedin suggests that those who have an interest in locally
grown,
organic produce might want to encourage their senators or
representatives in
Congress to support changes in the Farm Flex program, currently under
consideration, that would allow different types of crops to be grown on
subsidized lands.
In response to Jack Hedin,
one critic noted that the Farm Flex program only applies to those
farmers
growing for fruit and vegetable processors, not for direct sale fresh
to
consumers or produce markets. Furthermore, this same critic was of the
opinion
that the subsidy program has actually discouraged large
growers of fresh produce from competing with those like Hedin for space
on
produce market shelves, because they would be penalized just like he
was
(www.correntewire.com/the_
chastisement_of_ zucchini).
Given the vast number of
acres in Minnesota that must be subsidized, one can see why Hedin feels
that he
is senselessly being denied access to space for farming to supply a
market that
needs increasing amounts of what he knows how to grow. On the other
hand, his
critic sheds light on Hedin’s misunderstanding of the Farm Flex
program, and
this misunderstanding is really just the tip of the iceberg for
American
taxpayers and voters.
How Farm Subsidies Work
In order to write letters to
politicians and know which way to vote, we all need to understand more
about
how farm subsidies affect our economy and the food supply that is
available to
us. This is not easy, because the history and politics of farm subsidy
policies
are immense, with nuances that could fill volumes.
Still, some basic facts are helpful in getting a grip on the current
state of
affairs.
Farm subsidies have been with
us since presidents Hoover and Roosevelt introduced them as a means of
helping
farmers, which in turn was meant to ensure a reliable supply of food
for our
nation. Over the years, farm subsidies have been shaped by the
commodities
market and big business to benefit
corporations and owners of large farming operations, some of whom
“farm” by
hiring out all the labor or even renting the land to those responsible
for the
actual work.
Farm subsidies cost taxpayers
$16 billion a year, most of which is given to large agribusiness farms
and
corporate farming entities. At the same time, two-thirds of U.S.
farmers making
much less money receive no direct government support. Current
legislation
subsidizes 25 farm products; of these, corn, cotton, wheat, rice and
soybeans
make up 90% of the total produce funded. Not eligible for support are
fruits,
vegetables, meats, poultry, nuts and hay.
Subsidies and farm support
are paid out in several ways. The least costly of these is the
Conservation
Reserve Program, which offers landowners 10- to 15-year contracts to
keep environmentally sensitive
ground in grass or trees.
Another method, direct
payments, consists of fixed annual subsidies based on the historical
performance of a farm. These can be doubled for multiple owners. That
is,
duplicate payments can be made to a farmer, a spouse and other owners
of the
property in question — doubling, tripling or even further multiplying
the
amount paid.
Counter-cyclical subsidies
are automatic payments that occur when market prices fall below a set
level.
Other forms of support include government purchases of dairy products
and taxes
on imported products, as well as tax relief and pilot programs for U.S.
farms.
Reforming the Farm Bill
The last incarnation of the
Farm Bill, enacted in 2002, was originally set to expire March 15 and
did not
include the 2008 crop year. This legislation was recently extended for
33 days
by the Bush administration, which also said that if there were no new
bill by
then, the current law would be extended for one more year.
Direct-payment and
counter-cyclical subsidies are currently under scrutiny, as Congress
and the
present administration struggle to reach an agreement on how much to
increase
spending on farm subsidies and how to reform the current law. One of
the
reforms being considered in the 2007 Farm Bill would set a limit on how
much
adjusted gross income (AGI) a farm is allowed to bring in and still
receive
taxpayer support.
Currently, a farmer can make
$2.5 million in adjusted gross income and still receive support from
the
government. If the farmer receives 75% or more of his income from
farming, he
is then allowed to make even more money and still receive government
assistance! The administration originally wanted to cap the
2007 AGI at $200,000, but has since moved to a $500,000 limit. Congress
has
been unwilling to reduce this limit below $1 million.
Imagine an individual in any
other profession claiming welfare benefits, while making an adjusted
gross
income of $2.5 million or even $1 million! Such an individual would be
able to
contribute generously to campaign funds for those running for the House
of
Representatives or the Senate.
Other changes being
considered are the elimination of payments to multiple owners, except
spouses,
as well as the total amount being spent on farm subsidies. The
administration
has agreed to increase overall farm support to $6 billion, while
Congress has
come up with a $10 billion dollar figure. The president has stated that
he will
veto any bill that raises taxes for the Farm Bill.
Administration officials have
also mentioned changes in the size of farms that can receive government
support. Secretary of Agriculture Ed Shafer said that farms under 20
acres will
not be considered eligible for subsidies, because he views them as
“hobby”
farms rather than serious producers. He apparently has not toured small
farms
that use intensive methods and/or green houses to produce tremendous
amounts of
produce on small plots of land. Of course, most of these farms would
not be
eligible for subsidies anyway, because they are not growing one of the
25
subsidy-eligible crops.
The Best "Fix" of All?
All of these facts only hint
at the complexity of what is called “farming” by the politicians who
supposedly
represent our interests. Reform of the Farm Bill is definitely needed,
but it
looks doubtful that any significant change will happen, even if
Congress and the
White House can agree on their numbers.
Perhaps dropping all subsidy programs entirely would be the best fix of
all.
Certainly, writing letters to members of Congress cannot hurt.
In
the meantime, not supporting those farming entities receiving
our tax dollars
already makes the most sense. It seems safe to say that the farmers
from whom
Honest Weight purchases its local produce are not supported by the
government.
Look for local produce at the Co-op and any other market you frequent
and,
whenever possible, go out of your way to buy from small local farms
everywhere.
Mission
