Ending Tax Breaks To Rich (Farmers), Disappoints Klobuchar & Coleman
Posted by Andy on February 1st, 2007
The Bush Administration is proposing to cut the tax giveaways, er, subsidies that rich farmers get, and it of course isn’t sitting well with some Senators.
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration proposed Wednesday to end subsidies for thousands of the country’s wealthiest farmers.
Any farmer whose adjusted gross income is more than $200,000 a year would be ineligible for commodity payments under President Bush’s proposal for the 2007 farm bill. That’s substantially lower than the current limit of $2.5 million and would prevent 72,000 farmers who now receive subsidies from getting them, officials estimated. That’s 3.6 percent of the nation’s farmers, but federal officials couldn’t say how many in each state would be affected.
Its interesting to see that its OK to be a rich farmer, but not get rich in say, oh, the oil industry. Both industries are important to our nation, but they are treated quite differently. Now, there’s an attempt to level the playing field within the agricultural industry, so the rich aren’t given a leg up over the not rich, and the political feathers are getting ruffled.
Overall, the proposal would result in spending $10 billion less than the 2002 farm bill and make more money available to conservation and energy programs, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
“We … took a reform-minded and fiscally responsible approach to making farm policy more equitable, predictable and protected from challenge,” said Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns.
So we have Bush proposing to help lower the deficit by cutting $10 billion dollars of giveaways to the “rich”, but of course that’s not sitting well with Sens. Klobuchar and Coleman. Why? Farmers are a big special interest and voting block here in Minnesota. Just ask Mike Hatch what it means to lose the Farm vote the week before the election.
(Side note: Wasn’t it funny/ironic how Hatch’s running mate Dutcher makes a gaff about an energy source (E-85) and that forces every farmer with in 20 miles of an ethanol plant to vote for Pawlenty? It’s about time to merge the energy and farm bills and get it over with, because the two are in and of the same.)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who sits on the Senate agriculture committee, expressed general disappointment, saying the proposal “fails to include a permanent disaster assistance program and that is unacceptable.”
But I thought she wanted to have fiscal responsibility and to make the rich pay their fair share? I guess that excludes the agriculturally rich. They should keep getting the hand outs.
Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., who also sits on the committee, said there are “deep cuts and harmful changes to every commodity under the Farm Bill safety net, as well as to the Federal Crop Insurance Program, that would hurt Minnesota’s rural communities.”
And there we have the ’safety net’ term. I’m not aware of many if any other industries that the federal government provides a ’safety net’ for. I know my industry does not have a ’safety net’, and in fact every year government at some level comes up with more mandates and costly requirements for us to deal with and make it harder to make it. What we sell keeps getting more and more expensive and harder and harder to sell affordably.
I’m sorry, I just don’t understand why agriculture is a protected class where the rich can keep getting richer. The ‘haves and have nots’ is perfectly displayed in this industry, not to mention that the Government provides a safety net for it. Hey, to the small rural farmer, god bless ya, and keep it up. But to the corporate farmers who are simply manipulating the little guys to twist US energy policy into your windfall profits, go to (fill in the blank).
Its quite shameful that how corrupt and disingenuous this debate has become. Renewables are ‘good’ for farmers because it is profitable to them, but as for them being real energy solution today, that’s a load of manure. Corn is being sold as the next big thing to replace oil, only, corn ethanol is the most primitive version of ethanol, and is only a stepping stone.
In 10 to 20 years, we’ll have to invent some other need for the amount of corn that will be subsidized to grow, thus pushing this problem onto our kids. And all that is ignoring the environmental impact of agriculture. It was just but a few years ago, before anyone figured out the voting block of farmers could be brought in to the debate. Because, who is going to look a farmer in the face and tell them they are unneeded? Well, maybe it is time some one asks if we do need farmers to grow our energy. Seriously…(end impromptu rant)
I would expect that the Senators to provide some feedback to Bush on what levels of income is enough to end the handouts to farmers if they don’t like his proposal. But then again, I think they just want to be on record opposing cuts to farm handouts and giveaways and that is all. they just want to be able to say they did everything they could to bring home the pork on the campaign trail. That’s much more important than good policy.
Sphere: Related Content
February 1st, 2007 at 11:50 am
you are aware that the number of “rich farmers” is about less than 1% of all farmers right? and that a majority just struggle to get by until the next harvest?
whereas, pretty much ANYONE who has even a small stake in an oil field, is quite well off?
February 1st, 2007 at 12:00 pm
also, if you know ANYTHING about farming, just because a farmers “gross income” is over $200k, doesn’t mean they NET anything close to that.
my uncle’s tiny farm grosses around $150k a year, yet he takes home about $50-60k after all expenses, etc.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Corn is being sold as the next big thing to replace oil.
By whom? Not us. All we say is Minnesota motorists should have a choice at the pump — gasoline or cleaner-burning E85 or biodiesel.
BTW: The final product of celulosic ethanol is identical to ethanol produced from corn, sugar, sugarbeets, etc. Ethanol is ethanol. While the process is ancient, the technology in ethanol plants is increasingly sophisticated. One MN plant is adding a biomass converter to power itself. Another has already cut its power needs by 45% by adding a wind turbine.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:06 pm
what i’d like to know, is what do you on the other side propose Andy? to just keep drilling anywhere we can in the US that’s worthwhile, and work harder to use up everything?
unless you have stocks in oil companies, why would you oppose ANY type of renewable energy really? i don’t really get it… i mean working towards using less non-renewable energy forms SHOULD be something that anyone who calls themsevles a “conservative” should be interested in?
February 1st, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Actually Montana - the other side has proposed several things (besides additional drilling) that has been pooh-poohed by the enviros as being “unfeasible”. Clean coal for one, shale oil for another. I realize that the technology for shale oil production is still in it’s infancy, just like ethanol is.
Bob - you want to give consumers a choice, then give us a real choice! Not just a choice from a list that “you” deem to be acceptable!
LL
February 1st, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Lady L: What would you prefer? There are no other alternative fuels that can work in vehicles already on the road and in the showrooms. Besides, we have done the grunt work to get these fuels available in Minnesota. What have you done to help your state and your country?
Of course, you can buy a hybrid vehicle. Or a big SUV (hopefully one that can use E85 as well as gasoline). The choice is yours. That’s why we call our website: http://www.CleanAirChoice.org
February 1st, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Lung Ass Bob,
I’m curious, do you support higher CAFE standards?
February 1st, 2007 at 4:12 pm
“Besides, we have done the grunt work to get these fuels available in Minnesota.”
Lung,
If by “we” you mean “you” then “grunt work” means “lying”. There is not one single fact or statement that anyone can take at face value from you or the horse you rode in on.
We got so tired of shredding your anti-tobacco BS to ribbons it became easier just to point out “the Lung said that” since everyone understands what that means.
If farmers want to get together to build stills to turn their corn into alcohol, that’s fine. Just as long as I don’t have to subsidize that losing proposition.
February 1st, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Met with some real (not residual) forces today at the State Office Building as testimony began on the Freedom To Breathe Act of 2007. Marines. Sailors. Soldiers. Airmen. All veterans for smokefree air. Most of the guys I meet were from the “Greatest Generation” — guys who reminded me of my Uncle Joe, the bomber pilot. Or my Uncle Josef, the naturalized citizen who fought the Nazis in two armies — Polish and British. Can’t forget Uncle Bill, career Navy (CPO). Sp4 Moffitt was proud to stand with them, and shake their hand.
Think the pro-smoke side has won? Look into the the eyes of some of these old — but still tough and proud veterans, still ready to fight the good fight — and say that.