iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

PROMISES BROKEN: Rich Farmers Still Getting Most Government Cash

MARY CLARE JALONICK   05/ 5/10 04:25 AM ET   AP

Farm Subsidies

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers crafting a sweeping farm bill in 2008 promised it would cut government payments to wealthy farmers. Two years later, little appears to have changed.

Data being made public Wednesday shows that the wealthiest farmers in the country are still receiving the bulk of government cash, despite claims from lawmakers that reforms in the bill would put more money in the hands of smaller farms. At the same time, a series of exemptions written into the bill has made it more difficult for the public to find out who is receiving what.

Lawmakers writing the $290 billion bill included several provisions aimed at cutting down on government subsidies to the wealthiest farmers. They sought to eliminate a loophole that allowed farmers to collect higher payments and they set income limits for those who received subsidies. Though those new laws may have cut down on payments to some farmers, others have been able to find ways around them.

Such subsidies to the nation's largest farms are a mainstay of congressional politics and an eternal frustration to those who want to eliminate them. A powerful coalition of farm-state members of Congress have successfully defended their constituents' interests in farm bill after farm bill.

"They are well dug in," says Ken Cook, head of the Environmental Working Group, a Washington advocacy group that has long pushed for more equitable distribution of farm subsidies. "They have a strong interest in defending the status quo."

Cook's organization publishes a database every several years based on a series of Freedom of Information Act requests to the Agriculture Department, which collects data on subsidies but doesn't organize it for the public to search. The group's most recent database, released Wednesday, shows just 10 percent of farmers received 62 percent of federal farm payments in 2009, roughly the same amount as in 2007 and 2008, before the farm bill was enacted.

One reason for this may be that some farmers have found ways around the new rules. Those who exceed the income limits, established with the aim of eliminating subsidies for millionaires, could speed up purchases of equipment or otherwise alter their accounting to adjust their income. They may also add family members to their farm corporations to qualify for higher payments.

Randolph Rogers, a Hartsville, S.C., farmer who saw his subsidy payments drop after the 2008 farm bill eliminated a loophole that allowed him to collect more money, said he recouped some of the money by adding his children and his wife to his farm corporation, called Rogers Bros.

"The rules have changed and we have to change with them," said Rogers, who grows cotton, soybeans, peanuts, corn and wheat. "We don't have a lot of choice."

According to the Environmental Working Group's database, Rogers Bros. received $807,299 in federal subsidies last year, placing the company 56th on the list of top recipients. But Rogers says those who want to change the way payments are made don't understand the high cost of farming.

"Everybody just acts like we just put our money in our pockets," he said. "But it takes that money to operate."

Just how much the government is paying the individual members of Rogers Bros. and companies like it has become harder to figure out, according to the Environmental Working Group. While the Agriculture Department previously released data that showed which individuals received subsidies through business entities and how much they received, the group was not able to get that information this time after Congress wrote a series of data exemptions in the farm law.

Whether all of that information will be available again is unclear. Lawmakers writing the farm bill directed the USDA to track that information in a different way with the stated purpose of improving the transparency of who is receiving what, while also prohibiting the release of some data due to privacy concerns for farmers.

Members of Congress declined to talk about how their bill has performed. House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., and former Senate Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the two lead negotiators of the 2008 farm bill, were unavailable for comment, according to their spokesmen. Current Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., would say only that the bill "made great strides to improving farm programs."

Harkin has long pushed to lower the limit on what an individual farmer can receive so smaller farms could share in more of the money. Spokesman Grant Gustafson said, however, there was "strong resistance to reducing substantially the actual limitations on payments."

Much of this resistance often comes from Southern members of Congress who represent cotton and rice farmers. Those crops are more expensive to grow, and Southern lawmakers have for decades defended higher farm subsidies.

___

On the Net:

Environmental Working Group: http://www.ewg.org/

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Filed by Nick Graham  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 16
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
farmilyman
everything is illusion
11:20 AM on 05/07/2010
GMO farmers are the ones getting the money. This needs to stop immediately before the next environmental crisis occurs.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/05/06/overuse-of-gm-crops-becoming-a-serious-problem.aspx
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BlackYowe
I am a classical- liberal woman and a Jeweler.
12:30 AM on 05/07/2010
This makes me so angry. Where is the change Obama????
02:22 PM on 05/06/2010
I think all subsidies should stop immediately!!!
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
JScott
John Galt's last name is McGuffin-Smithee
01:47 PM on 05/06/2010
So is JG Boswell high on this list?
12:21 PM on 05/06/2010
$290 billion. 10 percent of "farmers" recieving 62 percent of federal farm payments.

Not to mention these subsidies causing a dust-up with Brasil that may end up with higher tariffs on American products, hurting our businesses.

No accountability, just campaign contributions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
2CLEVER
09:48 AM on 05/06/2010
thats Y theyre RICH
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kevin Atlanta
Active Citizen 54
08:57 AM on 05/06/2010
It's still socialize the cost (loss) and privatize the profits in good corporate communist style. End the farm subsidy to the Corporate Farm and restore the programs to the Mom & Pop focus that began them.
photo
ReealOne
Don't sweat the small Stuff, life is way too short
05:13 AM on 05/06/2010
Yeah. I wonder how that BIG government's working out for the farmers. All the while, the HYPOCRITES who are screaming about socialism, small government and the deficit that they don't want their children or grandchildren to have in the future, are REALLY SELECTIVE when "embracing" that socialism they are getting from the BIG government, and don't seem to give a damn about the deficit this is leaving for their children and grand children.

That socialism OK as long as they're benefiting from the "handouts", but will protest and scream foul when anyone else gets help.

I'M WILLING TO BET YOU EVEN MONEY THAT NOT ONE OF THESE FARMERS RETURNED ANY OF THE SOCIALIST MONEY.

I think that in order to show these liars and hypocrites for what they are, their socialistic handouts should be posted for all to see, and indicate whether or not they returned any of the money - and watch them scatter like roaches when the lights are turned on.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aznurse
03:16 AM on 05/06/2010
Is Michelle Bachmann still cashing in on this?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:01 AM on 05/06/2010
why isn't this on the main page. or in politics ?
05:38 AM on 05/06/2010
Beacause the main page carries important stories like Eliz Hasselbeck getting into a fight with Erin Andrews or what Kim Kardashian's ex has to say about her.

Where are you prioriites?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
organicconnect
12:32 AM on 05/06/2010
Agricultural policy in this country has to change. There is much more than a financial stake in this. Studies show that farm policy has a major hand in the staggering statistics of childhood obesity and other ills that cost this country so much. Here's two articles on this point:
http://organicconnectmag.com/wp/2010/03/childhood-obesity-and-american-agriculture/
http://organicconnectmag.com/wp/2010/05/david-wallinga-md-mpa-encouraging-healthy-food-production/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TOPCAT711
What a Long Strange Trip It's Been
12:09 AM on 05/06/2010
We have farmers in the family. The family farm has been in NM before it was a state. ALL staunch Republicans. ALL constantly complain about welfare, food stamps, and other social programs. ALL are financially sound. ALL have been sucking at the government subsidy teat for years and years.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StansDad
Guy who eats food
01:08 AM on 05/06/2010
gggiiiit yer gawd dang guvment hands off mah gawd dang guvment farm handouts
05:24 PM on 05/06/2010
I come from a long line of farmers myself and I like farmers, but what you say is true for the most part. My farming relatives are pretty good. They got a good thing going on and they know it and don't gripe very much, but they are Republicans to the bone. Farmers tend to think that they are the only people in the country that work. They do work, for sure, about 6 or 7 months out of the year.
photo
farmilyman
everything is illusion
05:26 PM on 05/05/2010
Those are mostly the GMO farmers. This is the next catastrophe brewing........uncontained genetic pollution.