Obama taps well of federal agencies to help drought-stricken farmers

Comet · #1 (**permalink**) 08-19-2012, 07:55 PM

Assuming the money is used in a sensible manner, I take no issue with this.

Too bad this was not done sooner, but I suppose Congress going on a five-week break was more important. Now these farmers will not see any funds until September at the earliest.

Quote:

The Obama administration is calling on federal agencies ranging from the Coast Guard to the Transportation Department in a multibillion-dollar effort to help farmers and others stricken by the worst U.S. drought in a half century.

The drought, expected to continue through November, has resulted in severe conditions in at least 33 states across the West and Midwest and is projected to cost the U.S. economy as much as $50 billion.

The administration has already provided farmers with an estimated $9 billion so far this year to help pay crop-insurance premiums. And just last week the White House announced the government will buy as much as $170 million worth of pork, lamb, chicken and catfish to help drought-stricken farmers struggling with the high cost of animal feed.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the purchases will help keep commodity prices from falling and provide “high quality, nutritious food to recipients of USDA nutrition programs."

However, the administration also has initiated several other efforts -- including the Agriculture Department making available $30 million for financial and technical assistance to crop and livestock producers in 19 of the hardest hit states. Roughly $14 million of the funds can be used to help transport water to livestock and rehabilitate land severely impacted by the drought, the White House said earlier this month.

Vilsack, while touring hard-hit Iowa last week with President Obama, said that the worst of the drought appears to be over, in part because of increased rain in the Midwest. However, he said the agency likely will not know the full impact on the country’s biggest crops – corn and soybeans – until harvest season.

Though Vilsack signaled good news, problems persist. A recent New York Times report stated thousands of horses are being abandoned in dried-up ranges across the South and Southwest by ranchers who can no longer give them food and water.

The administration’s efforts might also come too late, because Congress left for a five-week break without agreeing on a relief plan, which means farmers won’t get their money until at least September.

"I'd like to see every one of the senators and congressmen go out into one of these widespread, drought-stricken areas and spend a day," said Todd Eggerling, a rancher in southeast Nebraska. “Walk around and see the effects of what's going on. Look at the local economies and see what's going to happen to them. Then they can go back to Washington with a real perspective and say, 'Hey; we need to do something.' "

The House approved $383 million in disaster relief earlier this month, but Congress went home before the Senate acted on the bill. The Senate had previously passed a disaster aid package as part of a five-year farm bill, but GOP leaders in the House refused to bring that to a vote because many Republicans object to the nearly $80 billion included for the food stamp program.

Other administration programs include the Interior Department adding more flexibility to grazing on federal lands. And the Small Business Administration is helping farming communities get access to credit and investment money. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has said it will assist the Agriculture Department, which is leading many of the efforts.

The administration is also allowing an additional 1,000 credit unions to increase their lending to small businesses. And the Transportation Department is attempting to get more commercial truckers to help out farmers by providing flexibility – and, in some cases, waivers – on federal regulations.
Even the Coast Guard is helping, working with the Army Corps of Engineers to identify and monitor potential problems in rivers and other waterways, include in some cases releasing storage reservoirs to help where the drought has reduced water levels.

Read more: Obama taps well of federal agencies to help drought-stricken farmers | Fox News

40yearfan · #2 (**permalink**) 08-19-2012, 09:59 PM

I've worked in the construction industry for over 50 years. We have had some serious downturns where up to 40% of businesses went out of business. NEVER has the government offered to help us in our time of need. The only time we hear from them is when we have a good year and then they are johnny on the spot waiting to collect their exhoribant amount of taxes.

Why is it that government is willing to help one segment of society and completely disregard another?

BTW, I don't believe in subsidies for anyone. That includes farmers, oil companies and Amtrac. If they can't make it on their own, they don't deserve to be in business.

Mikeyy · #3 (**permalink**) 08-19-2012, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 40yearfan

I've worked in the construction industry for over 50 years. We have had some serious downturns where up to 40% of businesses went out of business. NEVER has the government offered to help us in our time of need. The only time we hear from them is when we have a good year and then they are johnny on the spot waiting to collect their exhoribant amount of taxes.

Why is it that government is willing to help one segment of society and completely disregard another?

BTW, I don't believe in subsidies for anyone. That includes farmers, oil companies and Amtrac. If they can't make it on their own, they don't deserve to be in business.

Crazy huh?

foundit66 · #4 (**permalink**) 08-20-2012, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 40yearfan

BTW, I don't believe in subsidies for anyone. That includes farmers, oil companies and Amtrac. If they can't make it on their own, they don't deserve to be in business.

We usually don't hear Republicans talking about cutting back on farming subsidies. Probably because it digs into their "we'll take your money, but you need to cut the federal spending for others" mentality.

BTW, farming subsidies amount to about $15 to $35 billion annually...
Agricultural Subsidies | Downsizing the Federal Government

lurch907 · #5 (**permalink**) 08-20-2012, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 40yearfan

I've worked in the construction industry for over 50 years. We have had some serious downturns where up to 40% of businesses went out of business. NEVER has the government offered to help us in our time of need. The only time we hear from them is when we have a good year and then they are johnny on the spot waiting to collect their exhoribant amount of taxes.

Why is it that government is willing to help one segment of society and completely disregard another?

BTW, I don't believe in subsidies for anyone. That includes farmers, oil companies and Amtrac. If they can't make it on their own, they don't deserve to be in business.

Ditto.

AzMike · #6 (**permalink**) 08-20-2012, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

We usually don't hear Republicans talking about cutting back on farming subsidies.

You pipe in with this line every time a thread like this comes up. What part of NOBODY should be getting subsidies do you not understand?

Xcali · #7 (**permalink**) 08-26-2012, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 40yearfan

Why is it that government is willing to help one segment of society and completely disregard another?

I don't agree with Subsidies for businesses either, but I understand the need for Farm Subsidies. You have to remember these are big crop Farms that are getting subsidized. The reason is simple, the Produce they grow and Harvest is intricately attached to our economy in many ways. Rice is one of the biggest, think of all the products made from Rice and what happens when the Price goes up on Rice. Corn, over the past few decades Ethanol has been mass produced to as an alternative fuel source. They even add Ethanol to unleaded fuel now, so you can imagine what happens to Fuel when Corn goes up. Here in the south we have Corn and Soybean, Rice and Cotton... All four are a necessary part of the economy so subsidies are paid to help keep the prices down. If you take away the subsidies these Farmers would still make it.. but they would definitely price half the nation out of business.

40yearfan · #8 (**permalink**) 08-26-2012, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xcali

I don't agree with Subsidies for businesses either, but I understand the need for Farm Subsidies. You have to remember these are big crop Farms that are getting subsidized. The reason is simple, the Produce they grow and Harvest is intricately attached to our economy in many ways. Rice is one of the biggest, think of all the products made from Rice and what happens when the Price goes up on Rice. Corn, over the past few decades Ethanol has been mass produced to as an alternative fuel source. They even add Ethanol to unleaded fuel now, so you can imagine what happens to Fuel when Corn goes up. Here in the south we have Corn and Soybean, Rice and Cotton... All four are a necessary part of the economy so subsidies are paid to help keep the prices down. If you take away the subsidies these Farmers would still make it.. but they would definitely price half the nation out of business.

I disagree. If our prices go up, food producers start importing from S. America and prices will go back down. Look at how we kept sugar artifically inflated for years by not allowing sugar from other countries into the US. Subsidies are relics of the past that have outlived their usefulness. The only reason we still have them is because of lobbyists and generous donations to political funds.

Xcali · #9 (**permalink**) 09-02-2012, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 40yearfan

I disagree. If our prices go up, food producers start importing from S. America and prices will go back down. Look at how we kept sugar artifically inflated for years by not allowing sugar from other countries into the US. Subsidies are relics of the past that have outlived their usefulness. The only reason we still have them is because of lobbyists and generous donations to political funds.

Some crops maybe but we couldn't import enough Rice or Corn to keep up with demand. Our fuel prices are going up now, not because we are running short on oil, but because Corn has gone up to make up for the losses due to drouth. Refineries add ethanol to fuel, ethanol production is down because corn is dried up. Rice is another.. We produce most of the worlds rice and wheat crops. China and Japan import far more that we do. Rice is a bit easier to grow during a drouth though because it needs standing water and doesn't dry out like corn and soybean.

I will say though.. as far as subsidies go I believe in years where the crops are good and the Farmers are making a profit selling their products they should not be subsidized on top of their Profits. That's like giving an oil company 5 billion dollars on top of 35 billion in profits. Farm Subsidies should only be used and approved when there is a need for it. But then again our Government doesn't get that, they pay Farmers to grow certain crops. We have a Sweet Potato Farmer here who receives a subsidy to not plant his crop. He has 100,000 acres of empty land, hasn't planted a crop in two years.

40yearfan · #10 (**permalink**) 09-02-2012, 05:31 PM

Quote:

U.S. Farmers Seeing Record Profits, Thanks to Taxpayers and Government

Amy Payne

August 30, 2012 at 5:02 pm

The Financial Times reports that “U.S. farmers are heading for their most profitable year on record despite the worst drought in half a century as high grain prices and payouts from a federal crop insurance program compensate for a smaller harvest.”

Higher profits are great—when they come from real market demand. But farmers’ profits are coming partly from government-directed schemes that have raised prices and partly from taxpayer-funded subsidies.

Government mandates for ethanol production have twisted the agriculture market. Farmers plant more corn because there is guaranteed demand for it, but this demand is created artificially by the government. Higher demand means higher prices—which hit consumers as well as other farmers, like those who raise livestock and buy corn feed. As a result, everyone’s food prices are going up.

Then there’s taxpayer-subsidized crop insurance, which the Financial Times notes could pay out $14 billion to farmers this year.

As Heritage’s Romina Boccia explains:

This lavish subsidy encourages farmers to over-insure and take excessive risks at taxpayers’ expense. In fact, when disaster strikes and crop prices rise as a result, those farmers whose policies are linked to the price of their crops at harvest time profit even more from higher insurance payments than if they had sold their crops in markets absent a disaster.

Farming technology has made leaps in recent decades, enabling farmers to be more productive and efficient. That productivity can benefit consumers, too—if the market is allowed to work freely.

U.S. Farmers Seeing Record Profits, Thanks to Taxpayers and Government

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Comet For This Useful Post:
Coyote, saltwn

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 40yearfan For This Useful Post:
faithful_servant, lurch907

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AzMike For This Useful Post:
GottaGo, rivrrat