Farm Subsidies

Meet the New Farm Bill, Same as the Old Farm Bill

Taxpayer-subsidized crop insurance, like all farm subsidies, is a costly bipartisan disaster.


Congress may pass a new five-year Farm Bill this summer. On agricultural issues at least, a bipartisan spirit of compromise appears to be building in some sectors of Capitol Hill. If that continues to blossom, then America's taxpayers and consumers will again be forced to provide a needless crutch for many American farmers.

Next week the Senate will put its latest version of the Farm Bill, dubbed the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2013, to a vote. About half of the Senate's GOP members joined with all its Democrats to ensure the vote would take place.

The Senate version of the Farm Bill would cost $955 billion over the next decade. A similar House version would spend a mere $940 billion.

Despite these outrageous costs, this Farm Bill has been falsely billed as a money saver. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, calls the bill she shepherded "an opportunity to cut spending."

Perhaps she meant to refer to it as a "missed opportunity." After all, it's hard to square Sen. Stabenow's claim with the bill's nearly billiondollar trillion-dollar price tag and shiny pork, including "new subsidy programs for Midwestern and Southern farmers."

And about those spending cuts. Approximately $4 billion of the alleged "savings" proposed in the Senate version of the Farm Bill is expected to come from mandatory sequestration cuts.

Other "savings" would come from cuts to direct farm subsidies, an emblem of bipartisan pork, which appear largely to be on their way out. Maybe. But it's small comfort, considering they'll be replaced with a dramatically boosted scheme of subsidized crop insurance.

Under the USDA's crop insurance scheme, the federal government pays nearly two-thirds of farmers' crop insurance premiums.

If that sounds absurd to you, you're not alone. Last year, a Minneapolis Star-Tribune editorial referred to federally subsidized crop insurance as a "boondoggle" that "throw[s] money at farmers, whether they need it or not."

Which farmers get crop insurance subsidies? Who knows?

Since at least 2000, the federal government has hidden from public view the names of crop insurance subsidy recipients.

In 2011, 26 farms each received more than $1 million in taxpayer-funded crop subsidy premiums, according to data provided by the Environmental Working Group.

Likely due to the fact Congress failed to pass a new Farm Bill last year, about 100 skittish national lobbying groups called on the Senate earlier this week to put the Farm Bill to a vote.

"We must cut unnecessary spending," these groups wrote in a joint letter to the Senate majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "We must provide an effective farm and natural resource safety net."

Of course, the safety net these groups beg for every five years is also the unnecessary spending they suggest needs to be cut. But such is the logic of the Farm Bill.

Who stands against the Farm Bill's excesses? Maybe congressional Republicans?

MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell, who refers to himself as a socialist, has been blasting GOP members of the House and Senate rightly for some time now for protecting what O'Donnell calls "agricultural socialism."

Like me, it's the bipartisan nature of farm subsidies that most sickens O'Donnell.

"No socialist program gets more unbridled bipartisan support than agriculture socialism, our single worst and stupid and most inefficient form of socialism in this country," he said earlier this week.

Keep Food Legal, the nonpartisan nonprofit I lead, is currently taking a hard look at the bipartisan politics behind the Farm Bill for a forthcoming report we anticipate releasing later this year.

As I noted in an earlier column, one of several I've written on the Farm Bill, our early research indicates that GOP-dominated states and GOP districts in Democratic-dominated states appear to "grab an outsized share of subsidies, and that this share represents a huge overall percentage of USDA subsidy payments."

Our report, tentatively titled Compromising the Farm: The Politics of Farm Subsidies, will include in its findings the fact that an overwhelming majority of congressional districts receiving direct farm payment subsidies in recent years were represented by GOP congressman.

For example, our data indicate that 75 percent of the 30 most subsidized congressional districts in 2012 were led by GOP representatives.

That makes the prospects for the GOP-led House to put the brakes on the abominable farm subsidies evident in this Farm Bill sometime later this month more crucial—and less likely.

Whether or not farm subsidies are a socialist program, there's no mistaking that they're simply bad bipartisan policy.

That's not to say that crop insurance is a bad idea. It's not. Buying crop insurance is actually a good idea for many farmers. But forcing taxpayers to subsidize farmers' risk in a spirit of bipartisanship is not.

NEXT: DA Blew Forfeiture Money on Parties, Home Improvement

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Perhaps she meant to refer to it as a “missed opportunity.” After all, it’s hard to square Sen. Stabenow’s claim with the bill’s nearly billion-dollar price tag and shiny pork,

    Trillion-dollar, if you’re counting expenditures over ten years.

    And stop it with the smart quotes, Reason.

  2. Seems to make a lot of sense when you think about it.

  3. The “farm bill” has little to do with Farms.

    Only 15% goes to the Farm and Commodity program

    Conservation and Forestry is 6%

    Another 6% is Various Rural Development, Research, Food Safety, and Marketing and Regulatory functions.

    72% goes to Nutrition Assistance…..vid=BUDGET

  4. Don’t have a cow, man! This is only a 5 year plan, a temporary assist to farmers facing unprecedented market forces which, through no fault of their own, they are ill-equipped to handle. We as taxpayers must seize this opportunity to invest in food security for ourselves and for our children and for those less fortunate than ourselves. It is the height of irresponsibility to claim that we cannot afford to make a small investment now that will repay us a thousand-fold in future benefits. If we can be cowed into abandoning the family farmer, the sum and symbol of all that is good and right about America, simply by the rhetoric of wild-eyed extremists then truly the terrorists will have won.

    Oh, and Bush.

    I didn’t actually see a transcript of Stabenow’s speech in support of the latest slopping of the hogs, but the above came to me in a psychic vision of what she said. Was I close?

    1. Ha, you just went back twenty years to look up the temporary justification back then.

      1. Twenty or eighty? Doesn’t this go back directly to 1933? And indirectly to the end of WWI?

    2. If you think Lois`s story is amazing,, a month ago my daughter in law earnt $5883 just sitting there 20 hour’s a week from there house and their buddy’s step-mother`s neighbour has done this for three months and brought in over $5883 in their spare time at their pc. apply the guidelines on this site…
      (Go to site and open “Home” for details)

  5. Is there a Paleo subsidy?
    How about Primal assistance?
    A pro-LC/HF PSA fund?
    Formerly-obese guys need loving funding too!
    Where’s mine?

  6. A “bipartisan compromise” is polispeak for the colloquial “log-rolling” … you steal tax dollars for your project and I’ll steal tax dollars for my project. It’s a “win-win” for politicians … “lose-lose” for every citizen beyond the special interests that fund campaigns.

  7. 75 percent of the 30 most subsidized congressional districts in 2012 were led by GOP representatives.

    Of course the GOP is going to be over-represented there because they’re over-represented in rural areas.

    Farm subsidies and supports prevail worldwide. No particular political party seems to be responsible for that. However, in general some parties have been more closely associated with farmer interests for long periods. Often that’s been the more classically liberal parties; that’s the way politics runs with horse trading. When you have to put together a coalition to win, frequently it’s been the farmers that you wind up either in bed with or having to buy off to gain greater liberty on avg.

  8. It’s all about regional pork. Here in Iowa, liberal senator Harkin and conservative senator Grassley agree on only one thing: keep the farm bill pork coming. Oh, yeah, and ethanol mandates and tariffs on foreign ethanol.

    I find the actual farm subsidy portion (crop insurance) of the farm bill more egregious than the food stamps…and I’m a farmer.

  9. i am so grateful for your article post i read your blogs daily some great article

  10. you made some clear points there great delivery topic thanks for sharing this

  11. amazing post want more thoroughly enjoyed your gardens sweet website

  12. i think this is a real great article would you be all for exchanging hyperlinks? stick with it

  13. thanks for sharing this its very nice to read perfectly quality content

  14. information seems overwhelming i think this is a real great article major thanks for the article post

  15. so much excellent everyone loves this some genuinely nice stuff on this internet site

  16. here are a few of the cool web pages i liked it muchos gracias for your blog

  17. a cool post there mate your have good competence thanks for sharing this

  18. A “bipartisan compromise” is polispeak for the colloquial “log-rolling” … you steal tax dollars for your project and I’ll steal tax dollars for my project. It’s a “win-win” for politicians … “lose-lose” for every citizen beyond the special interests that fund campaigns.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.