Trying to make sense of the 2007 Farm Bill is enough to drive a person mad—or at least to a stiff drink. Even Idaho's all-Republican congressional delegation is a little unsure how the latest changes to the bill may affect Idahoans.
Sunday, the Twin Falls Times-News reported that the House Agricultural Committee passed a proposal limiting eligibility for some conservation and farm-program payments. They report that under the proposal, the eligibility cap for government payments would be reduced from an adjusted gross income of $2.5 million to an AGI of $1 million.
They also report that the Idaho congressional delegation had no idea how many Idaho farmers would be affected by the new cap. Here's what the delegation had to say as reported by Carol Ryan Dumas for the Times-News:
- Senator Larry Craig — "Basically, we haven't qualified yet how many farmers would be impacted by the cap," said Dan Whiting, Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig's communications director. "It obviously would affect some producers in Idaho." Craig is pleased that the cap was not set at a previously proposed level of $200,000.
- Senator Mike Crapo — Lindsay Nothern, communications director for Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said the Senate committee and Crapo "obviously remain very committed to the subsidy program. If the question is: Will the Senate follow what the House has done?" Nothern posed. "The answer is — not necessarily."
- Rep. Bill Sali — Wayne Hoffman, U.S. Rep. Bill Sali's communications director, said a lot remains to be seen on lowering the cap on eligibility. "This is a moving target," he said. "The Senate is still working on its version of the bill." Nonetheless, "we're looking into what impact this will have with Idaho farmers. Any time you start playing with a cap, there are concerns," he said.
- Rep. Mike Simpson — [He] didn't have any specific comment on the eligibility cap but said he has confidence in the House bill. "Chairman (Collin) Peterson, D-Minn., knows and understands ag, and I am anxious to thoroughly read the bill he's put forth. Conservation has been a priority throughout the crafting of this legislation, and I'm pleased the sugar industry prevailed over unjust criticism."
The delegation tap danced around the "holy grail" of agriculture subsidies, none of them wanting to appear unsupportive of Idaho's traditional agricultural roots.
Looking at the 2002 Census of Agriculture for Idaho, the latest year for which data are available, requires another round of stiff drinks; the report is lengthy and chock-full of...well...data that can get a bit unwieldy.
We'll try to keep this clear and concise as we try to help the Idaho delegation figure out how many Idaho farmers would be affected by the proposed new AGI cap of $1 million.
According to the 2002 data, of the 25,017 farms in Idaho, the largest 702 or 2.8 percent averaged more than 3,400 acres and reported a total farm income (market value of products sold plus government payments) of more than $1 million. Of those, after subtracting farm production expenses, the average net cash farm income was $686,750. That's getting us pretty close to an adjusted gross income but doesn't account for those who may have other sources of income as well.
Of the 702 largest farms, the report excludes the 102 farms where the operator is a hired manager. Of those remaining, 379 operators report getting their total household income from farming, leaving 221 reporting at least some income from other sources. The income from other sources in addition to the $686,750 average farm income (minus possibly a few credits and deductions) would make up their adjusted gross income.
So according to the 2002 averages, only 221 farms in Idaho would have had the potential of exceeding the proposed new cap of $1 million adjusted gross income. This means that the majority of even the largest farms in Idaho would still qualify for government payments and the Idaho delegation can quit tap dancing.
The next question is should they.
Through some reports it's evident that the farm subsidy program is in need of overhaul. But by all accounts, Idaho is not one of those states collecting the most in government payments. According to the Environmental Working Group's Farm Subsidy Database, Idaho ranks 26 of 50. Also 72 percent of all Idaho farmers and ranchers do not collect government subsidy payments.
Then there is this statistic from the EWG:
- The average adjusted gross income in Idaho was $42,679 in 2004. There were 256 beneficiaries in Idaho that received more than the statewide AGI from USDA programs in 2003; 560 in 2004; and 475 in 2005.
In 2002, of those 702 largest farms we looked at earlier, 114 reported a total farm income of more than $5 million with 72 of those collecting government payments totaling nearly $7.4 million. They averaged $102,528 in government payments per farm.
And one more statistic from the EWG:
- Among subsidy recipients, ten percent collected 65 percent of all subsidies amounting to $1.20 billion over 11 years.
- Recipients in the top 10% averaged $34,304 in annual payments between 1995 and 2005. The bottom 80 percent of the recipients saw only $1,142 on average per year.
Check out Idaho's top 20 subsidy recipients from 1995-2005 here.
Having grown up on a small family farm in an agricultural community, I have great respect and admiration for those hard-working farmers and ranchers who deal with hundreds of potential disasters every day. They get up every morning, not sure whether they'll have enough water, diesel or even time in the day to produce a successful crop. As the data show, most of them aren't asking for government handouts.
Isn't it past time that someone in Idaho stood up for those small family farms? This all-Republican delegation is so paralyzed with fear over losing the votes of potentially 221 of the largest farming operations in Idaho that apparently they are prepared to allow them to continue feeding at the public trough—at the expense of all the rest of us.
Oink, Oink.
Great work, MG. Good analysis. I suspect that it isn't the votes of the 221 farm operations, it's the campaign contributions.
Posted by: Alan | July 24, 2007 at 08:03 AM
Thanks Alan. You're probably right. Large operations with deep pockets--hard for those in office to say no, apparently.
Posted by: MountainGoat | July 24, 2007 at 10:40 PM
Great job MG. We were just discussing this very thing last night at the farmer's market. I'd bet that none of the folks in that venue receive any payments.
As far as our esteemed congressional delegation is concerned,I think Alan probably hit it on the head. Mike Simpson took $82K form Agribusiness PACs for his 2006 campaign, and over 60% of his contributions come from outside Idaho. Similar numbers are found for our Senators in their last election cycle:
Craig(2002) $203K, 60% out of state
Crapo(2004) $167K, 73% out of state
In each case, contributions from Agribusiness PACs are the #1 contributors to each candidate.
Posted by: Idagreen | July 25, 2007 at 09:01 AM
Excellent analysis!...and I'm glad Alan pointed out that national (international, in fact) ag policy is so mired in massive campaign subsidies that the small farmers in this country and around the world are plowed under. Yet, small farmers are the only ones keeping what's left of a diverse, local ag base in many communities.
If, instead of taking a commodity by commodity approach to farm policy our government approached it from the perspective of increasing the diversity local farm production and reducing the distance food traveled from production to consumption. It would also connect with energy policy, preserving farmland and controlling sprawl in suburban areas, rural economic development, etc...
Please keep going with info and analysis on ag policy. It is a perspective sorely missing from too many political debates.
Posted by: Jim Hansen | July 25, 2007 at 10:06 AM