Wilson Woods
2004-05-26 16:02:16 UTC
Another Year at the Federal Trough: Farm Subsidies for
the Rich, Famous, and Elected Jumped Again in 2002
by Brian M. Riedl
Taxpayers funding Washington's $20,000-per-household
budget have long known they are not getting their
money's worth. Farm subsidies are among the most
wasteful uses of taxpayer dollars. The budget-busting
$180 billion farm bill enacted before the 2002
elections not only encourages the crop overproduction
that depresses crop prices and farm incomes, but also
undermines trade and encourages other nations to refuse
American exports.
Perhaps worst of all, farm subsidies are not
distributed to the small, struggling family farmers
whom lawmakers typically mention when defending these
policies. Rather, most farm subsidies are distributed
to large farms, agribusinesses, politicians, and
celebrity "hobby farmers." This paper analyzes how
Washington distributed farm subsidies in 2002 and
illustrates that farm subsidies continue to represent
America's largest corporate welfare program.
Farmers Are Not Poor
Farming may be the ***most federally subsidized***
profession in America [emphasis added; ww]. The
persistence of farm subsidy programs results from the
popular misconception that they stabilize the incomes
of poor family farmers who are at the mercy of
unpredictable weather and crop prices. Yet a recent
U.S. Department of Agriculture report concluded that,
"On average, farm households have higher incomes,
greater wealth, and lower consumption expenditures than
all U.S. households."1 This statement can be broken
down into three parts:
* Higher incomes. In 1999, the average farm household
earned $64,437--17 percent more than the $54,842 v
average for non-farmers. Incomes were even higher
among the 136,000 households with annual farm sales
over $250,000--and who also receive the largest
subsidies. Their 1999 average income of $135,397 was
two-and-a-half times the national average.2 (See
Chart 1.) Farmer incomes are not only high, but also
quite stable from year to year, despite agricultural
market fluctuations.
* Greater wealth. The average farm household had a net
worth of $563,563 in 1999--well above the $88,000
national average.3
* Lower consumption expenditures. Farm households have
fewer costs than other households because (1) the
cost of living is lower in rural America; (2) farm
households need to purchase less food from outside
sources; and (3) mortgage and utility bills are often
classified as business expenses. Consequently, the
average farm household spent only $25,073 on goods
and services in 1999, which is $11,000 less than the
average non-farm family.
[remainder of excellent article at
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1763.cfm]
the Rich, Famous, and Elected Jumped Again in 2002
by Brian M. Riedl
Taxpayers funding Washington's $20,000-per-household
budget have long known they are not getting their
money's worth. Farm subsidies are among the most
wasteful uses of taxpayer dollars. The budget-busting
$180 billion farm bill enacted before the 2002
elections not only encourages the crop overproduction
that depresses crop prices and farm incomes, but also
undermines trade and encourages other nations to refuse
American exports.
Perhaps worst of all, farm subsidies are not
distributed to the small, struggling family farmers
whom lawmakers typically mention when defending these
policies. Rather, most farm subsidies are distributed
to large farms, agribusinesses, politicians, and
celebrity "hobby farmers." This paper analyzes how
Washington distributed farm subsidies in 2002 and
illustrates that farm subsidies continue to represent
America's largest corporate welfare program.
Farmers Are Not Poor
Farming may be the ***most federally subsidized***
profession in America [emphasis added; ww]. The
persistence of farm subsidy programs results from the
popular misconception that they stabilize the incomes
of poor family farmers who are at the mercy of
unpredictable weather and crop prices. Yet a recent
U.S. Department of Agriculture report concluded that,
"On average, farm households have higher incomes,
greater wealth, and lower consumption expenditures than
all U.S. households."1 This statement can be broken
down into three parts:
* Higher incomes. In 1999, the average farm household
earned $64,437--17 percent more than the $54,842 v
average for non-farmers. Incomes were even higher
among the 136,000 households with annual farm sales
over $250,000--and who also receive the largest
subsidies. Their 1999 average income of $135,397 was
two-and-a-half times the national average.2 (See
Chart 1.) Farmer incomes are not only high, but also
quite stable from year to year, despite agricultural
market fluctuations.
* Greater wealth. The average farm household had a net
worth of $563,563 in 1999--well above the $88,000
national average.3
* Lower consumption expenditures. Farm households have
fewer costs than other households because (1) the
cost of living is lower in rural America; (2) farm
households need to purchase less food from outside
sources; and (3) mortgage and utility bills are often
classified as business expenses. Consequently, the
average farm household spent only $25,073 on goods
and services in 1999, which is $11,000 less than the
average non-farm family.
[remainder of excellent article at
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1763.cfm]