PDA

View Full Version : Back Room Deals Continue



Gerry Clinchy
08-26-2010, 12:19 PM
NY Times Editorial
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/opinion/26thu3.html?th&emc=th



Senator Blanche Lincoln, an Arkansas Democrat and chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, has been seeking $1.5 billion in disaster relief for rice and cotton growers in Arkansas and other Southern states who were hurt by heavy rains. The White House seems all too eager to oblige an important Democrat who is in a very difficult re-election race.




Relief payments would be based not on a farm’s actual loss but on the amount it received under the government’s direct payments program, a generous annual subsidy based on a farm’s size regardless of market conditions. Anyone with a loss of more than 5 percent would get a check amounting to 90 percent of the subsidy. This would be a big, unjustified windfall, especially for big farmers.

According to an analysis by the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group, a large chunk of the aid — some $210 million — would go to Arkansas, including 270 farms that would be eligible for $100,000 each. All in all, this looks to us like a save-Blanche-Lincoln program rather than a save-the-farmer program.

Ms. Lincoln first sought the aid through normal legislative channels, as an amendment to a small-business bill. Democratic leaders said this would overburden an already expensive bill, so — according to numerous published accounts — the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, promised to find the money.

Rob Nabors, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, followed up with a letter dated Aug. 6 offering assurances that the administration “is committed to providing assistance consistent with your legislative proposal.” The money has yet to be found, and neither the budget bureau nor the Agriculture Department seems to know where to get it. Meanwhile, Collin Peterson, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, says “there is no way they can do this administratively,” and thinks authorizing legislation is required.

Congress and the administration need to work together to come up with a rational aid program to help farmers who are in real trouble. Ms. Lincoln will have to find a better way to save her job.

Roger Perry
08-26-2010, 12:35 PM
Relief payments would be based not on a farm’s actual loss but on the amount it received under the government’s direct payments program, a generous annual subsidy based on a farm’s size regardless of market conditions. Anyone with a loss of more than 5 percent would get a check amounting to 90 percent of the subsidy. This would be a big, unjustified windfall, especially for big farmers.

According to an analysis by the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group, a large chunk of the aid — some $210 million — would go to Arkansas, including 270 farms that would be eligible for $100,000 each. All in all, this looks to us like a save-Blanche-Lincoln program rather than a save-the-farmer program.


Paying farmers is nothing new!



Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm»


By Dan Morgan, Gilbert M. Gaul and Sarah Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 2, 2006

EL CAMPO, Tex. -- Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years.
Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice.
Matthews is not alone. Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post.
Some of them collect hundreds of thousands of dollars without planting a seed. Mary Anna Hudson, 87, from the River Oaks neighborhood in Houston, has received $191,000 over the past decade. For Houston surgeon Jimmy Frank Howell, the total was $490,709.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html

road kill
08-26-2010, 12:52 PM
Relief payments would be based not on a farm’s actual loss but on the amount it received under the government’s direct payments program, a generous annual subsidy based on a farm’s size regardless of market conditions. Anyone with a loss of more than 5 percent would get a check amounting to 90 percent of the subsidy. This would be a big, unjustified windfall, especially for big farmers.

According to an analysis by the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group, a large chunk of the aid — some $210 million — would go to Arkansas, including 270 farms that would be eligible for $100,000 each. All in all, this looks to us like a save-Blanche-Lincoln program rather than a save-the-farmer program.


Paying farmers is nothing new!



Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm»


By Dan Morgan, Gilbert M. Gaul and Sarah Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 2, 2006

EL CAMPO, Tex. -- Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years.
Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice.
Matthews is not alone. Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post.
Some of them collect hundreds of thousands of dollars without planting a seed. Mary Anna Hudson, 87, from the River Oaks neighborhood in Houston, has received $191,000 over the past decade. For Houston surgeon Jimmy Frank Howell, the total was $490,709.
"I don't agree with the government's policy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html

So, are you admitting then that there is NO "change???"


You know, "Hope and Change" and all of that Bull Shat??
Or have you forgotten??;-)



RK

Roger Perry
08-26-2010, 01:02 PM
So, are you admitting then that there is NO "change???"


You know, "Hope and Change" and all of that Bull Shat??
Or have yoiu forgotten??;-)



RK

If I remember correctly farmers have gotten paid not to grow certain crops years and years ago. However, I have not heard (until I did a google search) about people who do not own a farm getting paid for not farming.

Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm»


By Dan Morgan, Gilbert M. Gaul and Sarah Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 2, 2006

EL CAMPO, Tex. --

badbullgator
08-26-2010, 01:41 PM
If I remember correctly farmers have gotten paid not to grow certain crops years and years ago. However, I have not heard (until I did a google search) about people who do not own a farm getting paid for not farming.

Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm»


By Dan Morgan, Gilbert M. Gaul and Sarah Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
IT IS BUSH'S FAULT
. --

There that is what he is getting at :rolleyes: Geeze RK you should know he is a one trick pony by now

Gerry Clinchy
08-26-2010, 04:03 PM
Paying farmers is nothing new!


Doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. Or even a smart thing to do.

Paying non-farmers not to farm is even stupider. Such farm subsidies are a whole thread by themselves.

The point of this thread was that in this particular case, this was just another tool to build up the candidate that is favored by the national "powers that be", and the WH is in on the wheeling & dealing. That may not be new either ... but that doesn't mean it's right or smart either.

Almost as surprising is that it is the NY Times blowing the whistle.