What Is Slow Food > Slow Food USA Blog > House Ag Committee Rejects Obama Cuts in Farm Subsidies
Posted on Tue, March 09, 2010 by Jerusha Klemperer
3 Comments | Categories: Farms and Farming, Food Justice, News, Current Events, Policy, School Food,
by intern Valerie Scott
In his 2011 budget President Obama proposed to make cuts in farm subsidies and the crop insurance program that would save almost 11 billion dollars over 10 years. This proposal Obamas second attempt to cut farm subsidies - was rejected last Wednesday by the House Agriculture Committee .
Since the passage of the 2008 Farm Bill, farmers eligible to participate in the subsidy program must make no more than $500,000 in adjusted gross income (AGI) from off-farm sources and no more than $750,000 on-farm AGI. The newest Obama farm cuts would have lowered these eligibility caps to $250,000 off-farm AGI and $500,000 on-farm AGI. Direct payment caps were targeted for cuts of 25%, from $40,000 to $30,000 annually. A cut of $8 billion from the Federal Crop Insurance Program was also proposed.
The Obama administrations first unsuccessful attempt to cut farm subsidies in 2009 focused on phasing out direct payments to farmers with annual sales of more than $500,000. Direct payments are a highly controversial subsidy given to farmers based on the size of their farm and the commodity they grow - regardless of crop prices or production levels. In 2007, a year of high crop prices and record net income for farmers, taxpayers paid out $5 billion in direct payment subsidies. Despite the current deficit crisis, cuts in even the most controversial subsidies to wealthy farmers clearly remain an uphill political battle.
Farm subsidies primarily benefit growers of just five crops corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton and rice. With Congress currently giving school lunch programs just $1 per meal for a generation of children afflicted with epidemic levels of obesity and diabetes can we really afford not to put those 11 billion dollars towards better nutrition programs?
From FoodFitnessFreshAir on Tue, March 09, 2010
I wasn’t even aware that Obama was trying to pass this. I’m saddened to hear that while he did propose it, it was rejected. I wholly agree that that 11 billion dollars could be put to much better usage, like fighting obesity, and maybe even subsidizing healthier foods.
From Rich Radtke on Wed, March 10, 2010
As a farmer, I support Obama’s proposal. He simply wants to limit the funds, not eliminate them. His proposal, as it is stated, lowers the income levels of those who can receive subsidies. Without this, we are still giving money to the very wealthy. Does anyone else feel that giving unearned cash to the wealthy as wasting money? This is why we don’t give food stamps to the rich… they don’t need it to get by. Is an adjusted gross income of $500,000 not enough to live on?
Please realize, that lowering the limits will not prevent the wealthy farmers of America from getting there “fair-share”. We know a family that divides their farm income 5 ways… creating 5 seperate farm names (brother-1, brother-1 & wife, brother-2, brother-2 & wife, and brother-1 & brother-2). Why? Because they make millions of dollars each year and still want the easy government cash.
Quit giving this cash to these farmers and put the money into school lunches… something that needs the money. Money breeds curruption, even in the “honest” vocation of farming.
From Oliver Masciarotte on Wed, March 10, 2010
Once again, lobbyists override good sense…