One
percent. In terms of dollars it is the
equivalent of a simple penny, but in the U.S. federal budget, even this
seemingly minute sum will possibly be under scrutiny of federal budget cuts.
Farm subsidies,
which represent this one percent, are intended to aid American food and fiber
producers with fluctuations in commodity prices. Despite this percentage being
only a small portion of the national budget; nevertheless some people believe
these “farm-bailouts” need to go.
According
to an article by The Heritage Foundation, rather than just offering a
consistent income for farmers, farm subsidies often go to corporation farms
that have an annual income averaging $200,000.
Additionally, the article says that subsidies are often used by farmers
to plant more crops, thus producing more commodities and further decreasing the
prices that the subsidies were intended to offset. Cutting producers’ aid will lead to many
changes in production agriculture in the years to come.
“Without
farm subsidies marginal farmland will go out of production,” Dr. Wayne Hayenga,
agriculture economist at Texas A&M University, said. “Small family farms will become obsolete if
subsidies are cut but the (agriculture) industry can survive without this
land.” Hayenga believes that agriculture
will not suffer, and the nation will benefit, by cutting subsidies. According to Hayenga, the yields from this
marginal farmland is considerably lower than should be acceptable and therefore
should be eliminated anyways.
Controversy
and action over farm subsidies will hinge on whether more important figures
agree with Hayenga and deem that farm subsidies are not necessary for
continuing American agriculture. With
the recent failure of the congressional “Super Committee” to come up with $1.2
trillion in federal budget cuts, demand is greater than ever to find ways to
cut government spending; this could lead to more people pointing the finger at
production agriculture.
“Cutting
these funds from farmers will result in fewer producers and the possibility of price–setting
by the large corporation-run farms,” Kelly Head, USDA County Executive Director
and Texas cattle producer, said. According
to Head, this possibility of higher food prices will affect the consumer
directly and will deduct from what is currently a safe and economical food
supply. Agriscience teacher Stephen
Scitern concurred with this and added that it is increasingly hard to get
students interested in production agriculture. Scitern believes that this problem will only
become worse if farm subsidies are discontinued.
“Students
don’t join my FFA program to learn about production anymore. Taking away farm subsidies will take away one
of the incentives for young people to get into farming or ranching,” Scitern
said. “The hard work required with
little compensation is very intimidating without subsidies.”
Though
Head, Scitern and Dr. Hayenga differ in their views of subsidies, all agree
that there is room for reformation of farmer assistance programs so that tax
payers are more comfortable with the idea of aiding producers. They all also said that even in the event
that farm subsidies are completely cut from the industry, the American farmer
will adapt to feed the ever-increasing world population.
“We’ve
changed our practices a lot over the past decades with the introduction of
technology,” Head said.
“And we’ll continue to evolve however necessary to provide a safe and
economic food supply.”
Blog writer: Logan Leschper
No comments:
Post a Comment