FEATURE: THE FUTURE OF FARMING?
[Ed: An American activist sent this in with the comment - 'who said
Distributism isn't applicable to today's world...it's THE SOLUTION]:
May 14, 2001 NYT Online
Far From Dead, Subsidies Fuel Big Farms
By ELIZABETH BECKER
DALHART, Tex. - By any measure, Lanny Bezner is a successful family farmer. His eldest
son, John, rides herd over his cattle, spread out on pastureland from here to nearby New
Mexico. A younger son, Brian, looks after the farm's heavily irrigated cornfields, with
help from the husband of Mr. Bezner's daughter, Virginia. As a Texas patriarch, Mr. Bezner
rigorously sticks to the principle that economy of scale is the only way to survive in
modern farming. The bigger the farm, the better likelihood of turning a profit, hesays.
By buying adjacent fields, he has expanded his cropland from its original 700 acres to
more than 8,000. In five years he has doubled his grazing land by leasing 90,000 acres of
pasture. He owns a fleet of tractors and heavy farm equipment; he fills their tanks with
fuel from his own gas pumps. He dries and stores his harvest in his own imposing grain
elevators, which hold
more than a million bushels of corn.
Surveying the farm that he carved out in the Panhandle landscape of dry mesquite and
sagebrush, Mr. Bezner says the key to his family's prosperity is federal farm subsidies.
"We're successful primarily because of government help," said Mr. Bezner,
59, an entomologist who grew up on a farm outside Amarillo.
Although Mr. Bezner hesitated to discuss the size of those subsidies, government documents
show that in the last four years of the 1990's, he received $1.38 million in direct
federal payments. Most remarkably, Mr. Bezner and the other big farmers here in Hartley
County and across the country received those record-breaking payments in an era when
farm subsidies were slated for extinction.
Under the Freedom to Farm Act of 1996, swept up in the language of the Republican
revolution under Speaker Newt Gingrich, farmers who planted row crops - corn, wheat,
soybeans, rice or cotton - were freed from government
production controls. In exchange for being able to plant what they wanted, they were
told, they would have their subsidies gradually phased out.
While farmers embraced their new freedom to decide what to plant, they balked at accepting
the rigors of the free market. When prices for their crops held stagnant and their costs
rose, farmers lobbied Congress for "emergency" payments. Their friends in
Congress relented. Instead of diminishing, the subsidies have nearly tripled with
steep emergency payments that reached $22 billion last year, according to Keith
Collins, the top economist at the Agriculture Department.
Supporters of farm subsidies, which were enacted in the Depression, argue that they are
needed to save the family farm. But government documents indicate that the prime
beneficiaries hardly fit the image of small, hardscrabble farmers. Because eligibility is
based on acreage planted with subsidized crops in the past, the farmers who have the
biggest spreads benefit the most, according to the Environmental Working Group, a
nonprofit advocacy organization that obtained government records of farm subsidies
through the Freedom of Information Act.
"The data shows that government subsidies are tilting the playing field in favor of
the largest farms," said Clark Williams-Derry, the senior analyst at the
Environmental Working Group who created a national database of subsidies. Mr. Bezner, who
saw his direct federal payments balloon from $164,621 in 1996 to $741,839 in 1999, is one
of the elite 10 percent of American farmers who receive 61 percent of the billions of
dollars the program distributes.
The subsidies have been a chief source of capital for large operators to expand their
holdings, often by buying out their smaller neighbors. And unlike other federal
entitlement programs, farm subsidies have no requirements of income, assets or debts.
Friends in High Places:
As Congress considers reauthorizing the Freedom to Farm Act, lawmakers have already made
one fundamental decision: they will keep the subsidies. The phaseouts are a thing of the
past. The cost, and the fact that the money goes mostly to a select few, will be at
the crux of the debate over how to reshape subsidies. "The cost of this program is
astonishing," Mr. Collins said. "Any person engaged in small business in America
would be amazed looking at this. Their jaws would drop at the money farmers receive."
Mr. Bezner makes no apologies for accepting the money. To his mind, government subsidies
help the American consumer by making sure grocery stores are stocked with inexpensive
food. "That government money is keeping cheap cereal on the shelves in New York
City," he said. And no one expects farmers to lose their subsidies - not with
the friends they have in Congress.
The top leaders of both parties represent farm states that rely on subsidies. In the
Senate, the majority leader is from Mississippi and the minority leader from South Dakota.
In the House, the speaker is from Illinois and the minority leader from Missouri. The
relevant committees are headed by representatives from farm states; the chairman of the
House Agriculture Committee is Representative Larry Combest, a Republican who represents
Mr. Bezner's district in the northern plains of Texas.
"Look at the Nasdaq: those companies are going out of business and we don't open up
the Treasury to them," Mr. Collins said. "But Congress chose not to let farmers
bear that kind of pain." Like their counterparts in Hartley County, large farmers
around the country have complained to Congress that Freedom to Farm is not working because
their crops are selling at the same low prices their grandfathers' crops fetched 40 years
ago.
When lawmakers passed the act in 1996, they approved generous subsidies for the first two
years in order to give farmers a cushion to prepare for their independence. But when
the world market pushed prices down, farmers asked for emergency payments.
In 1998, Congress approved additional money, adding 50 percent to the core subsidy
payments. In 1999 and 2000, the lawmakers doubled the core payments. This month, with the
strong backing of the White House, Congress added $5.5
billion to next year's budget blueprint to cover potential emergencies. The concentration
of payments will remain the same: the wheat-growing plains states from the Texas Panhandle
through North Dakota; the Corn Belt across the Midwest; and the rice and cotton states of
the Mississippi Valley from Missouri through Louisiana.
While there are other subsidy programs, like those for dairy farmers and sugar producers,
the row-crop payments are by far the biggest. Ranchers, and farmers who produce fruits and
vegetables, receive virtually nothing from this program.
Representative Combest said he had concluded that the subsidy system should remain intact.
His one minor proposal is to cut subsidies when farmers receive higher prices for their
crops - what he calls a "countercyclical" approach.
Who Benefits?
Even though President Bush has promised to eliminate what he calls corporate welfare, Mr.
Combest and some Republican leaders see no contradiction between the farm payments and
Republican free-market orthodoxy. They contend that the subsidy is meant to help the
consumer, not the farmer.
"The consuming public has been the beneficiary of this program that gives money to
farmers to produce low-price commodities," Mr. Combest said in an interview. "We
don't want to become as dependent on foreign food as foreign oil." Those emotional
appeals fall flat with his counterpart, Senator Richard G. Lugar, the Republican from
Indiana who is chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee.
"Let's not make a mistake that these subsidies are pro-consumer; they are
pro-producer," Senator Lugar said in an interview. "There would be
extraordinarily adequate supplies of food in America if you had no control and no
subsidies." Senator Lugar said he wanted a revised farm policy to provide more money
to conserve land, improve rural communities and help farmers who are not doing well.
He also said he was under no illusion about the effect of the multibillion-dollar
payments.
"The rhetoric of failing farms doesn't always match the reality, because large
commercial farmers are doing well with their subsidies; their land values have gone up and
so have land rents," Mr. Lugar said. Eight percent of the country's farms produce 72
percent of the country's harvest. Most of the rest of the two million American farmers
earn their incomes from jobs off the land.
Instead, Senator Lugar said, these crop subsidies are a direct transfer of
taxpayers' money to rural landowners. "Is the American public willing to spend
money each year and every year providing a transfer payment from the taxpayers to the
agricultural sector?" he asked. "And how much - 5 billion, 10 billion, 15
billion?" What no lawmaker is expected to do is ask farmers to prove they need the
subsidies.
"This is not meant to be a welfare program, and it won't be - not if I have anything
to do with it," Representative Combest said.
Agriculture economists say such an argument misses the point. "In our food stamp
program we means-test the working poor with strict requirements, but we ask nothing of
farmers," said Mr. Collins, the Agriculture Department economist, who called the
subsidies "an income supplement from the government."
Where the Money Goes:
Even in Mr. Combest's Congressional district, where federal subsidies make up more than
one-third of the total farm income, Hartley County holds a special place. The top 10
percent of the county's subsidy recipients were paid an average $396,131 from 1996 to 1999
- more than double the national average. And in the pecking order, Lanny Bezner ranks
third. Two other Hartley County farmers received more money: John Cover, whose subsidies
totaled $2.3 million over that period, and Carl Kupyer, who received $1.9 million.
With subsidies of that size, those families rank among the top 10 recipients in Texas and
the top 100 in the country. Yet the Kupyer family considers the subsidies barely large
enough to keep it in business, according to J. C. Kupyer, who works with his father, Carl.
"We do make a living as farmers," J. C. Kupyer said. "But actually it would
be hard to farm without subsidies."
For three generations the Kupyers have been adding to their property, building their farm
from less than 700 acres to a 16,000-acre spread that they now own free and clear.
Yet with spiraling energy costs, Mr. Kupyer said, the family would sell the farm if
someone offered to buy it.
Mr. Cover refused to discuss his subsidies. Andy Michael, the Hartley County commissioner
and a rancher, said he
discounted many complaints from big farmers like Mr. Kupyer. In his view, farmers
complain to cover up how much money they are receiving from the government.
"The farmers are very closemouthed about getting help from the government - they
never, never talk about it," Mr. Michael said. "Farmers work the system. There's
no system for us to work." In the last five years, he said, the classic divide
between farmers and ranchers, exploited in generations of cowboy movies, has gotten worse,
because farmers are receiving bigger subsidy checks while ranchers get nothing.
"Any time I'm around farmers they say farming doesn't pay, but then they go out and
buy those $150,000 tractors with their government checks," Mr. Michael said.
"When times are tough for us, the rancher just tightens his belt." Business is
good for Mr. Michael and many other farmers and ranchers in Dalhart, a town of more than
7,000 people midway between Dallas and Denver.
Local farm equipment dealers report that despite the downturn in crop prices, their sales
of tractors and other equipment are among the best in the country. At the John Deere
dealership, farmers have spent $13 million to $21 million on agricultural equipment
every year since Freedom to Farm was enacted.
"This is one of Deere's strongest markets," said Mark Miller, finance manager at
the Dalhart dealership. Ralph Link is a Hartley County farmer who cannot afford new
tractors. He works his 845-acre spread himself with used equipment and received $173,787
in subsidies the first four years of Freedom to Farm. But unlike his neighbors with larger
farms, Mr. Link has nothing but praise for the prosperity that comes with federal
checks. With his new freedom, Mr.Link has been able to take advantage of the region's
shift toward agribusiness and plant all his cropland in corn, selling it to one of the
huge cattle feedlots.
In bad times, he says, the checks provide a safety net. In good times, like the current
season, the subsidies will provide him with a good profit - this season, he says, it will
be 18 percent. "The government payments are bigger since Freedom to Farm, so I don't
understand why you wouldn't like it," Mr. Link said. "Things couldn't be
better."
##############################################################################################
Reprinted from FINAL CONFLICT NewsEmail, 16th May 2001, Issue 1637
New Site.
THE FC PORTAL: http://wakeup.to/finalconflict
or http://finalconflict.hypermart.net
Make it your default web-browser page.
Support it by sending in news, graphics etc.
FINAL CONFLICT INFO LINE: 0774 8410607
NEITHER LEFT NOR RIGHT - BUT THE THIRD POSITION
Phone for an info pack:
UK: 0161 345 6932
USA: 1-888-858-6079
FC home page: http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/
International Third Position: http://www.itp.org
Links to other TP sites are on these.
Final Conflict is a non-profit making magazine dedicated to defending
European civilisation from Marxism and Capitalism.
FEEDBACK: CANDOUR
[Ed: Candour is the longest-running Nationalist journal in Britain. Founded in the early
1950s - 1953 if I recall correctly! - by AK Chesterton. We would urge all readers to
support it!]:
Hi FC:
For those who don't know already, the latest Candour is out. Issue 73,2 contains an
article all religiously minded people should read, concerning the complicity of the
Vatican in the global spread of false Churches which purport to be Catholic, but are mere
materialistic fronts (e.g. the Patriotic Church of Red China). The issue before, (73,1)
has a translation of the Magna Carta of 1215, which still is a binding document, however
much the criminals of Westminster choose to ignore it.
Candour has been an on-going publication since the 1950s. The style is at-once
hard-hitting and humorous. Plenty of back issues are available on request. Interested
readers should send an SAE (or equivalent) for details, to:
A.K. Chesterton Trust
BCM CANDOUR
London
WC1N 3XX
England
Candour also sell a selection of books and videos at very reasonable rates. Please support
this worthy venture, which operates as a distributist concern in practice, not just
theory.
For the 3Fs, Rufus
############################################################################################
FOR YOUR INFO.
Our e-mail address is: finalconflict@dial.pipex.com
FINAL CONFLICT (E-MAIL) IS PUBLISHED UNDER THE PATRONAGE OF
ST. GEORGE.
Final Conflict e-zine is the only daily National Revolutionary publication of its kind. We
need YOUR support to continue.
It is published in memory of Rosine de Bounevialle of Hants.,England, Paul Casey of
Cardiff, Wales, and Wallace Wears
of Tyneside, England.
Any publicity that our supporters and readers can give to the FC daily e-zine, in print or
on the net - is much appreciated.
Address details are at the end of each FC e-zine.
Other editors - please remember to include FC's details with any material reprinted from
this e-zine.
DON'T FORGET: Subscribe to Final Conflict magazine now and get a free FC badge.
FC (e-mail) is anti-copyright. But please keep to the original meaning and print FC's
address with reprinted materials.
For more info drop us an e-mail.
FC's snail mail address is:
Final Conflict, BCM Box 6358, London, WC1N 3XX, England.
Send 2 pounds/5 dollars for info pack.
Donations to help our work may be sent to this address. Cheques to 'Final Conflict' in
British Pounds only. Other currencies may be sent by registered delivery [notes only].
American readers can send donations to:
ACTP, 8175A Sheridan Blvd # 358, Arvada, CO 80003.
Checks payable to 'ACTP'. State that they are for FC.
For our full merchandise list see our web-site or send an e-mail to: finalconflict@dial.pipex.com
for our e-mail version.
Final Conflict quarterly magazine: ISSN 1463-614x
-----
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
-----
All reprinted materials in the FC e-zine, are the opinions of the authors and not
necessarily Final Conflict editors and staff...