Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Trump says U.S. farmers to get $15 bln in aid amid China trade war
“We’re going to take the highest year, the biggest purchase that China has ever made with our farmers, which is about $15 billion, and do something reciprocal to our farmers so our farmers can do well,” Trump told reporters at the White House.
It seems welfare, socialism and government handouts are OK for the president if you live in the right part of the country, vote Republican and have the right shade of skin color.
It seems welfare, socialism and government handouts are OK for the president if you live in the right part of the country, vote Republican and have the right shade of skin color.
@hank I saw this earlier, too; and peeked around for other info. July, 2018 was the first batch of money at $12 billion. Then, in March of this year; part of the 2020 budget calls for an overall reduction to the U.S.D.A. of 15%. This likely being money that travels somewhere else in the large bureau. As has been noted above; subsides are okay if one is in favor of why the subsidy is required, eh? D.C. land remains a slow motion train wreck on too many fronts.
“You have a terrible policy that sends farmers to the poorhouse, and then you put them on welfare, and we borrow the money from other countries...." Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn
Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said in a statement: “This trade war is cutting the legs out from under farmers and the White House’s ‘plan’ is to spend $[billions] on gold crutches."
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., said Trump’s bailout plan was downright un-American.
Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, the No. 4 GOP leader whose state is a major soybean producer. Yet he concluded: “If you’re going to have a trade fight, the trade fight to have would be the China fight.”
Farmers are “disappointed but, you know, recognizing that China is the one that is forcing this,” said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa).
Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) ... said the Senate can only do so much besides make their case to the White House: “Really this authority rests in the president.”
Farmers, chin up! There's nothing your senators can do, aside from tossing tens of billions of dollars your way. Just like the good old days - paying farmers for not growing crops.
@msf: not growing crops. I can't remember if we're on the same page, but I do recall farmers planting corn where erosion was a very big problem. Why did they plant there you may ask? To get yield so they then could put it into a set a side program. I'm thinking this happened prior to 1988. Derf I found this:Agriculture's Set-Aside Programs Should Be Improved CED-80-9: Published: Jan 11, 1980. Publicly Released: Jan 11, 1980.
The report you cited, seems to say somewhat the opposite. That farmers were collecting payments for not growing crops on land that they wouldn't have used anyway. https://www.gao.gov/products/CED-80-9
[The Dept of Ag had county offices determine farms'] normal crop acreage -- the acreage normally planted to crops for harvest. ...
When such acreage is overstated, producers in effect are able to claim for set aside a number of acres that normally would not have been planted.
As Robert Frank suggested (see my link in earlier post), protecting the soil was a post hoc rationale given. Historically, farm subsidies have been made for price supports; conservation has been at best a small part.
Here are a few pages that give backgrounds on farm subsidies in general. Pick your slant. The Cato piece seems to be the most comprehensive. Given Cato's libertarian leanings, you would rightfully expect it to be arguing against any subsidies. Still, the first part of the paper gives a mostly objective recitation of the history and types of subsidies.
Conservation Programs [(one of eight types of subsidies)] ... Like other farm programs, these subsidies are tilted upward, providing the great bulk of benefits to the largest farms. [Footnote to AEI paper.]
Grist offers a less lengthy history, but still one spanning the Dust Bowl period to the present. It has a different slant, but recites the same facts as Cato:
Since 1995, 75 percent of federal subsidies have gone to 10 percent of farms, the same consolidated group of commodity crop growers who will continue to eat up a disproportionate share of the subsidy pie under the new system, too.
These payments fund a massive industrialized food system that takes its toll on our land and water ...
The Economist focuses on all the faux-farmers doing nothing but collecting payments. It sets the tone with an excerpt from Catch 22:
THE father of Major Major, a character in Catch 22, a novel by Joseph Heller, makes a good living not growing alfalfa. "The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn’t earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce." Each day, Mr Major "sprang out of bed at the crack of noon... just to make certain that the chores would not be done."
NPR's take on the Conservation Stewardship Program (a program mentioned in the Cato section on Conservation Programs) is that while its payments to farmers do temporarily get them to improve the land, farmers revert to growing corn and soybeans when those markets improve.
According to [environmentalist Craig] Cox, when farmers decide to take land out of the CRP, it means that most of the money spent on environmental improvements on that land is wasted. "The benefit is lost really quickly," he says."
Comments
You beat me by 2 seconds.....
I saw this earlier, too; and peeked around for other info. July, 2018 was the first batch of money at $12 billion. Then, in March of this year; part of the 2020 budget calls for an overall reduction to the U.S.D.A. of 15%. This likely being money that travels somewhere else in the large bureau.
As has been noted above; subsides are okay if one is in favor of why the subsidy is required, eh?
D.C. land remains a slow motion train wreck on too many fronts.
Trump vs Xi
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/top-republicans-rip-trumps-farm-aid-plan-as-welfare-soviet-type-of-economy-2018-07-24
Now:Farmers, chin up! There's nothing your senators can do, aside from tossing tens of billions of dollars your way. Just like the good old days - paying farmers for not growing crops.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/13/trade-china-republicans-1319024
Derf
I found this:Agriculture's Set-Aside Programs Should Be Improved
CED-80-9: Published: Jan 11, 1980. Publicly Released: Jan 11, 1980.
https://www.gao.gov/products/CED-80-9 As Robert Frank suggested (see my link in earlier post), protecting the soil was a post hoc rationale given. Historically, farm subsidies have been made for price supports; conservation has been at best a small part.
Here are a few pages that give backgrounds on farm subsidies in general. Pick your slant. The Cato piece seems to be the most comprehensive. Given Cato's libertarian leanings, you would rightfully expect it to be arguing against any subsidies. Still, the first part of the paper gives a mostly objective recitation of the history and types of subsidies. Grist offers a less lengthy history, but still one spanning the Dust Bowl period to the present. It has a different slant, but recites the same facts as Cato: The Economist focuses on all the faux-farmers doing nothing but collecting payments. It sets the tone with an excerpt from Catch 22: NPR's take on the Conservation Stewardship Program (a program mentioned in the Cato section on Conservation Programs) is that while its payments to farmers do temporarily get them to improve the land, farmers revert to growing corn and soybeans when those markets improve. https://www.cato.org/publications/tax-budget-bulletin/reforming-federal-farm-policies
https://grist.org/food/our-crazy-farm-subsidies-explained/
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2015/02/12/milking-taxpayers
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/06/07/531894461/u-s-pays-farmers-billions-to-save-the-soil-but-its-blowing-away