News

[Article Summarized by Meridian Institute] Major farm groups and lawmakers from both parties are calling for the end to the direct payment program, in the name of deficit reduction, but, in the same breath, are seeking to send most of that money straight back to the same farmers, just under a different name. Vincent H. Smith, a professor of farm economics at Montana State University, calls the move a bait and switch. “There’s a persistent story that farming is on the edge of catastrophe in America and that’s why they need safety nets that other people don’t get,” he said. “And the reality is that it’s really a very healthy industry.” The difficulty of simply eliminating a subsidy without replacing it with another demonstrates how hard it is for Washington to trim the money flowing to any powerful interest group. The new subsidy, called “shallow-loss” protection would act as a free insurance program to protect commodity growers from small drops in revenue. While many farmers already purchase crop insurance – whose premiums are subsidized by the federal government - to protect themselves from large drops in price or crop damage, the new subsidy would add another layer of protection. The proposed subsidy would protect farmers during long periods of depressed prices, says Gary D. Schnitkey, a professor of farm management at the University of Illinois, adding that without such a program, “we would see financial stress and we would see farmers go out of business.” Schnitkey said the plan could pay farmers pay $40 billion over 10 years - $20 billion less than the programs it replaced. Dr. Smith, however, disagrees. He said the cost would be much greater because the plan uses recent high crop prices as its benchmark. “If farm prices move back towards what are widely viewed as more normal levels than their current levels, farmers will be compensated for going back to business as usual,” he said. Representative Marlin A. Stutzman (R-IN) argues that the new plan will give famers more flexibility in managing risk. “Farmers shouldn’t have to pay the brunt of the deficit problem,” he said. Craig Cox, a senior vice president of the Environmental Working Group, said, of the subsidies: “How do you justify this kind of money going to a sector of the economy that’s booming while other folks in the country are suffering?”