The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Back Room Deals Continue

  1. #1
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,925

    Default Back Room Deals Continue

    NY Times Editorial
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/op...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.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    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...070100962.html
    Last edited by Roger Perry; 08-26-2010 at 12:51 PM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,703

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Perry View Post
    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...070100962.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
    Last edited by road kill; 08-26-2010 at 01:18 PM.
    Stan b & Elvis

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    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. --
    Last edited by Roger Perry; 08-26-2010 at 01:26 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member badbullgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    somewhere between Boca Grande and Mims
    Posts
    7,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Perry View Post
    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 Geeze RK you should know he is a one trick pony by now
    Views and opinions expressed herein by Badbullgator do not necessarily represent the policies or position of RTF. RTF and all of it's subsidiaries can not be held liable for the off centered humor and politically incorrect comments of the author.
    Corey Burke

  6. #6
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,925

    Default

    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.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •