cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
JimMeade
Veteran Advisor

Both Front Feet In The Trough

The House version of the Farm Bill will let your cousin, your niece, your best friend's mistress and half the rest of the county in on your farm payments.  Senator Grassley of Iowa says it's a boondoggle and give-away.  Are you signed up yet?  Did you tell your Congress critter to vote for it?

0 Kudos
3 Replies
WCMO
Senior Advisor

Re: Both Front Feet In The Trough

There's a couple of easy fixes for that, but they might go too far in elimination of the "christmas trees" and spousal benefits, and therefore won't happen.

 

1) Farm program payments may be subdivided among actual reported participants

 

together with

 

2) For payment limitation and qualification purposes, all qualifiers, payments and subsidies from all USDA programs are to be combined as one

 

and (the killer)

 

3) For payment limitation and qualification purposes, all individuals and entities with any reported ownership interest are to be combined as one

 

Example:

 

An individual operates his own farm, with his spouse, plus he participates in a partnership with his brother who also farms separately with his spouse, plus both brothers are part of a family farming corporation owned by the two brothers and several non-farming cousins, plus the two brothers also own a minority interest in another farm corporation majority owned by their grandfather.  Under #3, for payment limitations and qualification purposes, all of this is considered one (1) operation.  It doesn't matter if the participants are married or single, related or non-related.  Because each of the brothers owns an interest in all of the other stated entities, the operation is considered as one -- brother, brother, partnership, brother/cousin corporation, grandpa corporation -- one operation.  Under #2, whether it is financial qualifiers and/or payment limitations, all programs payments and subsidies to this one operation are to be combined into one determination.  Under #1, any program benefits for which this one operation qualifies may be subdivided into benefits for each entity according to their ownership interest (if they actively participate in farm labor or management), yet the overall payments and subsidies cannot be increased for the overall operation as determined under #2 and #3.

0 Kudos
sw363535
Honored Advisor

Re: Both Front Feet In The Trough

It is not an agriculture department....  It is a social engineering department devoted to penalizing greed among the serfs that produce food.

Like everything in washington its decisions have been politicized into determining proper and not proper. and every.

 

And they can't figure out why their efforts don't function properly...... CRP for the "environmental" good, favors the rich and retiring and hurt young new farmers.... so they even that out with payment limitations----- in their minds.  Even though those young farmers leave the farm and won't be back.  No one will ever hold them accountable for their success or lack thereof over time at usda, like every other government department they are self audited.... It is primarily a scam the taxpayer department.  

So like Jim, many don't participate and the big get bigger by avoiding those offices where they are ratting out the

'politically incorrect" and every last dollar they can milk out of congress with those erosion numbers and environmental concerns.   🙂   Money spent totally ineffeciently while the majority of agriculture production goes on in spite of them or their ever elusive and changing rules.

 

Whatever is written in the bill will be rewritten by the unelected bureaucracy.

 

 

WCMO
Senior Advisor

Re: Both Front Feet In The Trough

Many truths.

 

Reminds me of article in a conservation magazine I read maybe 10 years ago.  The article talked about the benefits of CRP and WHIP for wildlife, and mostly talked about re-establishing habitat for quail.  Article reviewed the costs, payments, etc. from example farms.  Of course, being a conservation magazine, they included some incredible figures for money saved from saving those massive amounts of soil  Of course, the thing that stood out most to me was a study that showed, over a 10-year period, the average quail count per 100 acres had increased by 3.  So, I'm thinking that was an awful lot of money to dole out for 3 quail, and why didn't they just go buy a couple hundred of them and turn them loose.

0 Kudos