Who Needs Markets, When Sherrod Brown Will Save Inefficient, Unprofitable Producers During Bad Years?
From The Dayton Daily News:
WASHINGTON — The Senate Agriculture Committee on Thursday passed a $288 billion farm bill that largely maintains the farm subsidy program but includes a measure introduced by Sen. Sherrod Brown to allow farmers to opt into a revenue-protection program aimed at mirroring market forces.
Under Brown’s plan, farmers could rely on private revenue insurance, unless widespread losses keep it from being effective. Under the bill, farmers could begin participating in Brown’s plan in 2010, 2011 or 2012. Once they opt in, they would be committed until the next farm bill.
Brown, D-Ohio, argues that his program returns the farm program to its roots: ensuring that farmers can survive a bad year.
“When price is high and yield is high, you don’t need government help, and you shouldn’t get government help,” he said.
At your office, how many of you would like Sherrod Brown to give you a grant when you don’t meet your sales quota or when some investment ends up losing money for you?
You don’t quilify because you’re not a farmer. But members of the Rockefeller family, the former CEO of Seagram spirits company, farms in Beverly Hills, and very profitable corporations will benefit from Sherrod Brown’s and Congress’ generosity. The average American family will spend $322/year on this type of boondoggle for farmers.
But Congress loves to play with the food market. For example, their love of subsidies for farmers to produce ethanol is largely responsible for the recent increases in overall food prices.
I know that Senator Sherrod Brown and others are doing their very best to purchase votes from farmers. But it would benefit all of us if Congress would simply butt out of the food market.
Let me get this straight. Sen. Brown introduces a measure that cuts farm subsidies by tying them to market conditions and limits them to apply only when private revenue insurance cannot provide adequate coverage, and that’s a bad thing.
Sounds to me like his measure would cost less and be more effective. I understand Matt that you would prefer that there be no government subsidy, but isn’t this a step in the right direction to you? It would require less subisization of the food market. Frankly, I’d think you’d prefer that instead of being a voluntary “opt-in” program, you’d prefer to see it mandatory if we’re going to have federal farm subisides at all.