« Tolstoy on the People's Will | Main | Costly Regulation: The Case of Gasoline» Don Boudreaux
September 15, 2006
The State: An Anecdote
Don Boudreaux
Reported in "Harper's Index" (Harper's, October 2006, page 13):
Minimum amount of USDA farm subsidies since 2000 that have been paid out to people who do not farm: $1,300,000,000.
That's $1.3 billion. One program. And this by an institution -- the state -- that many conservatives trust to build nations abroad and many left-liberals trust to make better decisions for each of us individually than each of us individually will make for ourselves.
Posted by Don Boudreaux in Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/23120/6062817
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The State: An Anecdote:
Comments
Ack, that's pretty sickening, and disheartening. Is there any chance of ever getting this thing righted?
Posted by: Chris Meisenzahl | Sep 15, 2006 8:52:26 PM
I'd like to see a post with the title:
The State: The Antidote.
Posted by: James Pyrich | Sep 15, 2006 10:48:43 PM
You don't know the half of it- I had a business for years, providing goods and services to farmers. When the EWG group started posting what individual farmers were getting for subsidies in my area, I could no longer look at them in the same way.
Among Ag subsidy defenders, much is made of the concept of "food security", just like "energy independence" is, but when we are producing twice what we can consume, I think we can cut waaaayyy back on the amount of money given out, and still do just fine, thank you!
Posted by: Good Ol' Boy | Sep 16, 2006 11:31:51 AM
At least some of the subsidies to people who don't farm started this way:
There were subsidies offered to land used for farmland. The income from farming + subsidies was greater than using the land for other purposes, and so it was farmed. But this resulted in a ridiculous glut of farming crops, as expected.
However, it was extremely difficult to cut the subsidies for farming. So someone came up with this bright idea: "If we can't cut the subsidies, why don't we at least allow people to use land its most efficient purpose?"
Honestly, it is a more economically efficient form of subsidy than one that forces the land to be used for farming. It's also pretty incredibly stupid, but perhaps the silver lining is that it's a stupidity that everyone can recognize, while so many are blinded to the stupidity of farm subsidies in general.
Posted by: John Thacker | Sep 16, 2006 6:22:33 PM
Are you referring to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), another perenial favorite in marginal farm country? While no better, it is different than paying folks like Sam Donaldson subsidies for his farm.
My own observations of CRP were that the total payout during the ten-year period of the sign-up vs. that land's value should have purchased the land for the taxpayers. This was all marginal land that the farmers were going broke trying to farm anyway. The CRP payment wasn't enough in most cases for the farmer to live on regardless, so he still went broke. Also, by taking land out of production, it hurt the local economies to boot.
Isn't big government great?
Posted by: Good Ol' Boy | Sep 16, 2006 9:54:53 PM
As regards CRP.
The State leases the land for 10 years and grows native grasses to benefit wildlife and conserve marginal farmland for future use (that's their stated purpose). Many of the farmers in the program are elderly, and the checks underwrite their retirement. It can cause plenty of disruptions, in some counties half the land is in CRP, so farm support businesses are hit hard and often close.
I suppose you can hate the (non) farmers if it makes you feel better, but if they were leasing their land to a neighbor like Ted Turner who did the same thing the state does would you also hate them? They are making a market decision to lease rather than farm, it's the state who's decided they know best what to do with the land (big surprise there). I don't know anyone who's getting rich leasing CRP, the land is competitively bid, so if you ask too much for the lease you won't get into the program.
This program is more of a conservation/environmental program than a farm program. iIf you think that the state shouldn't be supporting programs like the CRP I would agree, it's probably not money well spent, but there are many people who think this is exactly the kind of thing the state should be doing with our taxes, saving the planet.
I suspect this will get worse before it gets better. At least the land hasn't been sold to the state, so it's available for the next generation if market conditions again support farming.
Posted by: MTguy | Sep 18, 2006 5:24:15 PM
What's Harper's definition of "farmer"? Someone who lives on the land and has dirt under his or her fingernails? Someone who lives on the land but is widowed and rents the land out on shares or for cash? Someone who inherited the land from the widow and lives in Houston and continues to rent the land out? Someone who has bought the land as an investment and continues to rent the land out for farming? Someone who has switched from field corn to community supported agriculture? Someone who has leased his/her land under CRP? Depending on the definition the $1.3 billion is either way high or way low.
Posted by: Bill Harshaw | Sep 19, 2006 4:01:42 PM
I think this number comes out of a study of people who get Ag Subsidy checks but their ZIP code is in a non-rural region. Check out the ewg page.
http://www.ewg.org/
Posted by: Xmas | Sep 20, 2006 5:27:27 PM
