A Crop In Itself

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/14/AR2006101400807.html?nav=rss_politics">Aid Is a Bumper Crop for Farmers</a><br />n<br />n<blockquote>In the spring of 2000, Congress decided to do something about its costly and politically driven practice of giving farmers a disaster payment each time a storm damaged their crops.<br />n<br />nThe lawmakers voted to use $8 billion in new taxpayer subsidies to help farmers buy crop insurance to protect them against losses. The insurance would replace the disaster payments and reduce government costs.<br />n<br />nBut shortly after passing the Agricultural Risk Protection Act, Congress lost its fiscal will. One week before the presidential election, it passed a new $1.8 billion disaster bill to assist farmers hurt by bad weather. Two others followed in subsequent years, totaling more than $6 billion. Today, after a searing drought in the Plains, farm-state legislators are pushing for billions more in aid.</blockquote><br />n<br />nYes, disaster aid is a crop in and of itself for farmers. I will not deny this and anybody that does is not living in reality. This above article is very interesting and a good read for all of you who are interested in disaster aid and farming. It points out how crop insurance is a government subsidized program, so that paying for disaster aid is like double dipping. You get crop insurance payments and disaster aid, all from the government.<br />n<br />nThe interesting thing here, not covered by the article is how you qualify for most disaster aid. Your crops have to be covered by crop insurance. No crop insurance, no disaster aid. So while they call it double dipping, you have no choice. To partake in the farm programs you have to have crop insurance which then authorizes you to receive disaster aid.<br />n<br />n<blockquote>Those farmers have come to depend on both crop insurance and disaster payments, which together allow for covering up to 95 percent of the value of their crops. "Taxpayers are funding something good, the rural life," said Terry Aronson, a farmer in the flood-prone Devil's Lake area of North Dakota, who has received nearly $300,000 in disaster aid the past decade.</blockquote><br />n<br />nI like this one. Do you taxpayers enjoy "funding something good, the rural life?" I have a question as usual, what makes the rural life good if it requires such large doses of disaster aid on a regular basis? Another question, what makes the rural life good? It is intrinsically good somehow or is it the regular infusion of taxpayer money that makes it good? If everybody chases the "good,rural life" will the rural life be rural anymore since most people will be there or will the cities be rural?<br />n<br />n<blockquote>Fisher said he doesn't begrudge growers who have collected disaster aid, despite the cost to taxpayers. His own farm has gotten some. "Whether it's right or wrong, if they are offering it, you're foolish to turn it down," he said.</blockquote><br />n<br />nSomebody with my opinion, right or wrong, if they offer it you are a fool not to take it. That is like the <a href="http://www.agr.state.mt.us/business/LAGP_first.asp">program that is being offered</a> in my area nbow. Could I get by without it? Yes. Will I apply for it? Yes, a person is a fool to turn it down. I might not be very bright, but I am not a fool.<br />n<br />n<blockquote>Congressional sponsors of disaster legislation offer a variety of reasons for their bills. They say federally subsidized insurance doesn't cover all of a farmer's losses, and disaster aid fills the gaps. It helps to stabilize rural economies, which don't have many other options. And it offsets rising fuel and production costs while securing cheap food for Americans.</blockquote><br />n<br />nAh, the real reason stated for the farm programs and disaster aid. Cheap food. The government realizes that if people can't afford food and are hungry they will throw the bums out of office by the ballot box or by force. Hungry people are capable of anything, like overthrowing civil authority, and that scares those in power. so, what do they do, keep the price of food low to keep the masses fat and happy. Those of us that produce the food aren't included in their calculations. If we can't make a living on the cheap food that is not their problem, just the flow of cheap food to the masses.<br />n<br />n<blockquote>"We don't like it any more than the taxpayers do. With disaster assistance, we're at the whims of the politicians," he said. "But we need something. I don't care what you name it.<br />n<br />n"It's feast or famine here. Economically, does it make sense? Probably not. Philosophically, I don't know. Americans want cheap food, and they want it when they want it."</blockquote><br />n<br />nLot's of things said here. Most farmers don't like it that's true, and many do need it to stay in business. Like I said above, cheap food. But I think it's the politicians that want the cheap food for the reasons stated, not the people. <br />n<br />nI will not beat the drum for disaster aid. Many need it and want it but I will not demean myself for asking (begging) for it. I will accept it if it is offered. The fun part is watching to see if it is going to be offered. Only time will tell.<br />n<br />n<strong>Never stand begging for that which you have the power to earn. Miguel de Cervantes</strong>