Spending bill is held up over a dispute about farm subsidies. Republican leaders offered a $12 billion package for farm subsidies, while Democrats have a $10 billion package.
https://www.rrfn.com/2024/12/16/congress-is-on-the-clock/

These quotes are from a 2018 analysis of farm subsidies.

Quote:

---

The results of the analysis indicate that farms in the top 10 percent of the crop sales distribution received approximately 68 percent of all crop insurance premium subsidies in 2014 and that farms in the top 2 percent receive approximately $50 per acre in crop insurance subsidies, more than four times higher than the average per-acre subsidy of $12.28. In addition, farms in the top 20 percent of the crop sales distribution received more than 82 percent of ARC and PLC payments in 2015. Farms in the top 5 percent of crop sales received close to the total amount of ARC and PLC payments ($299 million) received by farms in the lowest 90 percent of crop sales ($358 million). Finally, the top 10 percent of farms in crop sales were estimated to receive nearly $3 billion in total ARC, PLC, and crop insurance subsidy payments in 2015, and farms in the bottom 80 percent of crop sales received approximately the same total amount of ARC, PLC, and insurance subsidy payments as farms in the top 2 percent.

---

Quote:

---

If the objective of cost-effective farm safety-net policies is to ensure a stable food supply by helping all farms manage otherwise volatile revenues, then the current programs do not direct taxpayer funds in ways that effectively protect farm operations that are most vulnerable to such shocks. Market forces have provided incentives for farm operations to consolidate and recognize economies of scale and scope. However, we show that those farms are also most likely to be the largest beneficiaries of the three major farm programs, even though these farms are also likely to be the least vulnerable to shocks that adversely affect their revenues and costs.

---

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Where-the-Money-Goes.pdf?

This is full of crap

aTmAg said:

---

Holy crap.. since when has TexAgs been overrun by liberals?

You guys seriously think that the government is BETTER at handling changes in supply and demand than the free market? You don't notice that government sucks at it EVERYWHERE?

---

This. There is not one thing the government does efficiently…especially in regards to economics. And when there's billions of dollars to be tossed around it just gets even worse. The free market has methods to handle this situation just like all the others. At best, it amounts to the government taking our money and "giving" some of it back to us when we buy food. In reality, how much of it gets wasted through administration, corruption/cronyism, and other forms of just outright waste.

Mandatory and government-subsidized crop insurance continues to distort prices and production within the farming industry, just like Obamacare has further distorted prices within the healthcare industry.

jrdaustin said:

---

mccjames said:

---

10 billion? That is all? Hell we spent 156 billion on illegals. Fix that and it is a drop in the bucket if the 28 trillion we owe

---

Was just going to post that I'm confused as to all the consternation over a delta between $10 & $12 billion ($2 billion), when we've sent about $65B to Ukraine.

There's a thing called economies of scale. And the dispute over the farm bill ain't it.

---

It is performative BS by both parties pandering to their base constituencies.

mccjames said:

---

Just take away the 36 billion in climate change studies and divert half to farms.

---

Food stamps cost is about $115 billion a year, so the argument is over about 10% of that

I'd like to see those subsidies phased out for larger corporate farms. At a certain point, they should be sophisticated enough to manage their own risks.

I'd also like to know how much of those subsidies eventually flow to foreign ownership. I have a feeling that there is so much foreign ownership buried under layers of LLCs and private partnerships that it would be shocking.

There is a mountain of waste in farm relief. Might not be worse than other govt "insurance" giveaways…but it's there.

I'd bet there are a lot more fundamental differences between those two plans than just the spending of $2B more or less.
Sadly, $2B is nothing.

I think every giveaway should be looked at, I just think there are a ton of bigger fish to go after first.

I think a balanced budget in 2 years is not impossible and a surplus in 4 years should be the goal.

Ulysses90 said:

---

I support a free market in which farmers are free to buy crop insurance and to trade in futures contracts to hedge.

---

I agree in most cases, but for Ag, it affects everyone if they don't cover themselves properly. I don't have that level of trust in the farmers (or humans in general). And if bad enough, it could be catastrophic.

mccjames said:

---

Just take away the 36 billion in climate change studies and divert half to farms.

---

Biden just spent $3 billion for EV trucks for the USPS. That comes out to $30 million per vehicle.

He promised another $6 bil. Divert that to the farmers.

Logos Stick said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

I support a free market in which farmers are free to buy crop insurance and to trade in futures contracts to hedge.

---

I agree in most cases, but for Ag, it affects everyone if they don't cover themselves properly. I don't have that level of trust in the farmers (or humans in general). And if bad enough, it could be catastrophic.

---

And yet you have trust in the humans in GOVERNMENT to not screw it up?

Unlike the free market, government has killed millions of people through famine by screwing up farming policy. Farmers run the risk of losing EVERYTHING if they don't cover themselves. You think that enough farmers would do that, to risk nationwide catastrophe? Really?

I've personally seen farmers take advantage of this. You know what they're doing when you see them planting during a 40mph wind in west Texas near the last day of planting season. No way seed will take and they just collect federal insurance payment.

Quote:

---

I'd like to see those subsidies phased out for larger corporate farms.

---

https://www.feedandgrain.com/business-markets/news/15710402/small-family-farms-dominate-us-agriculture-landscape-but-large-farms-lead-in-production-value

Quote:

---

Family farms constitute 96% of all U.S. farms and account for 83% of total agricultural production

---

SunrayAg said:

---

REEEEEEEE I support free markets and there should be no farm programs!!!

Is the same as saying…


I support eliminating all farms on US soil and buying every mouth full of food from countries with no burden of laws and regulations that drive up production costs. And I also support every small town drying up and dying…

---

It's the same for people who are ignorant and do not understand economics.

The proper answer is to reduce our regulations and taxes that drive up production costs. Not to add MORE government idiocy.

We all know someone.... 👀 pic.twitter.com/4pJgonPI6Y

— StrongFarms (@StrongFarms) February 28, 2024

Logos Stick said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

I support a free market in which farmers are free to buy crop insurance and to trade in futures contracts to hedge.

---

I agree in most cases, but for Ag, it affects everyone if they don't cover themselves properly. I don't have that level of trust in the farmers (or humans in general). And if bad enough, it could be catastrophic.

---

With that logic I assume you think we should subsidize things like electric and gas utilities then as well since we are also screwed if they fail to produce enough. There are a lot of similar industries as well that society fails and people die if they don't work.

I trust the invisible hand a lot more than the government to keep things working as long as the government stays out of it. If we got the government out of food production, it would be a lot more secure IMO.

I'm fairly sure there are levels of subsidy, or at minimum, protected markets, for most utilities.

And as far as a better market if the government stayed out, possible.

But we are talking $10 billion in an industry that grosses $580 billion this year.

And $10 B is about $30 per person per year

$10 billion here... $10 billion there... eventually it adds up to real money.

It boils down to a simple question: Does one understand that the free market has always been the best mechanism for distributing resources that mankind has ever developed. If yes, then the answer is clear: Government should have no role. If no, then you have some reading to do.

Remove all the absurd nonsensical regulations against farmers involving water use and management, for just a small example rules that require farmers to monitor and regulate even small, temporary puddles on their land, excessively strict limits on irrigation water usage even in drought-prone areas, mandatory buffer zones along streams that significantly reduce usable farmland, or requiring permits for basic agricultural activities like tilling land that could be considered "disturbing wetlands," often leading to confusion and significant bureaucratic burdens for farmers, even when their practices do not pose a significant environmental threat. Absurd permitting regulations that are nothing more than a way of the bureaucracy to bleed out the little farmers and extort the biggest operators.

hoopla said:

---

Spending bill is held up over a dispute about farm subsidies. Republican leaders offered a $12 billion package for farm subsidies, while Democrats have a $10 billion package.
https://www.rrfn.com/2024/12/16/congress-is-on-the-clock/

These quotes are from a 2018 analysis of farm subsidies.

Quote:

---

The results of the analysis indicate that farms in the top 10 percent of the crop sales distribution received approximately 68 percent of all crop insurance premium subsidies in 2014 and that farms in the top 2 percent receive approximately $50 per acre in crop insurance subsidies, more than four times higher than the average per-acre subsidy of $12.28. In addition, farms in the top 20 percent of the crop sales distribution received more than 82 percent of ARC and PLC payments in 2015. Farms in the top 5 percent of crop sales received close to the total amount of ARC and PLC payments ($299 million) received by farms in the lowest 90 percent of crop sales ($358 million). Finally, the top 10 percent of farms in crop sales were estimated to receive nearly $3 billion in total ARC, PLC, and crop insurance subsidy payments in 2015, and farms in the bottom 80 percent of crop sales received approximately the same total amount of ARC, PLC, and insurance subsidy payments as farms in the top 2 percent.

---

Quote:

---

If the objective of cost-effective farm safety-net policies is to ensure a stable food supply by helping all farms manage otherwise volatile revenues, then the current programs do not direct taxpayer funds in ways that effectively protect farm operations that are most vulnerable to such shocks. Market forces have provided incentives for farm operations to consolidate and recognize economies of scale and scope. However, we show that those farms are also most likely to be the largest beneficiaries of the three major farm programs, even though these farms are also likely to be the least vulnerable to shocks that adversely affect their revenues and costs.

---

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Where-the-Money-Goes.pdf?

---

Is the amount received per acre really the major part of that?

In many places where there is plenty of rain, the land is more expensive per acre and it produces more per acre. It makes sense, I think, to base the crop insurance paid based on the ability to produce at the location rather than trying to pay the same price per acre.

Quote:

---

Remove all the absurd nonsensical regulations against farmers involving water use and management, for just a small example

---

Regulations are not as big a pain as in arbitrary trade policies. For example, Carter tanking the grain markets over the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent grain embargo.