Farm subsidies–Congress spends $250 billion on them–yet it’s interesting to note that NONE of that $250 billion goes to vegetable farmers. Instead of encouraging healthy diversity in our nation’s agriculture industry, subsidies promote overproduction and lower crop prices so that the only farms benefiting from the subsidy program are mega-farms. The current program hurts farmers, taxpayers, and yes, even our environment.
It’s interesting to note that 90% of the $250 billion farm subsidy money goes to five crops–wheat, cotton, corn, soybeans and rice. The current policy does not reflect the components of a healthy diet–corn is a sugar and starch, cotton is inedible–and most of those corn and wheat crops are grown to supply our nation’s voracious appetite for cheap meat. These are also pesticide and herbicide-heavy crops, corn and cotton among the most hazardous to water, air and soil quality. In contrast to what is spent on subsidizing foods Americans already eat too much of, vegetable and fruit farmers get a big fat ZERO percent of the subsidy dollars. It’s ironic that we spend a lot of money through the USDA to tell people to eat healthy, despite dumping money out of the same pot to encourage production of unhealthy foods.
Even farm advocate Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) acknowledges the difficulty in changing a giant, expensive and complicated program that undermines conservation efforts and allocates money to the farmers who need it most. And obviously with so much money at stake, the stakeholders will not let go of a program that puts so much money in their pockets. The Heritage Foundation explains just where 2001′s farm subsidies went in the article “Still at the Federal Trough: Farm Subsidies for the Rich and Famous Shattered Records in 2001.”
While federal subsidies prove futile and wasteful, a recent state program has garnered profits for small farmers in Wisconsin. The Buy Local Buy Wisconsin program gave out $225,000 in grants to advertise state farms and resulted in a nearly $584,000 increase of food sales to new customers. This program kept money local and increased support for small farmers. Any government program that gets double its investment back is a keeper!
Check out Reasononline to learn more about why we should encourage our Congressional representatives to kill the farm subsidy program and embrace programs like the one in Wisconsin that works.
Farm subsidies drive me crazy. As a taxpayer, I’d much prefer to see that money allocated in a better way — encouraging organic farming, discouraging industrial meat production, etc.
Just another reason to support our local farmers and to grown our own veggies!
It’s amazing that nothing goes to veggie farmers, but I’m glad to hear about the state program. There are several relocalization and transition programs in the Denver-Boulder area, and I think that’s where the money and support for local farming will come from in the near future.
Milk subsidies definitely should be eliminated. (Although I agree the whole program should be scrapped.) These subsidies, if I remember correctly, were started around the Depression, back when there was not a good cold chain for distributing milk from places where it is cheap and easy to produce (Wisconsin) to places where it is expensive to produce (say, New Mexico). The subsidy encouraged farmers in non-dairy states to produce milk even though the land was not suited to it by jacking up the price.
The farmgate price (the price on which the subsidy is based) is based on the milk price in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, which is about 60 miles from the dairy farm my grandfather had. The closer you are to Eau Claire, the less money you get. (Not that my grandfather would have taken a subsidy – we are not big on government assistance in our family.)
There is no reason for the milk subsidy these days. It is fairly inexpensive to transport cold items long distances now. If you can get Ben & Jerry’s ice cream made in Vermont in California, then you should be able to get Wisconsin milk in Florida. The taxpayers should not have to subsidize Dean’s.
I should qualify my comment with the statement that I read about milk subsidies years ago and some of my facts might be a little off. But I think the general concept is right. I am just too lazy to go back and read 20 pages about the program.