Home

Blog

P.L. 110-234, The Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 (41 comments ↓ | 37 wiki edits: view article ↓)

  • This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.

H.R. 2419 would provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012.

(read more ↓)
[29 views]

Learn More

Visitor Comments Comments Feed for This Bill

Jambarama

May 24, 2007, 9:58am (report abuse)

I'm really sick of all the agricultural subsidies. I know the ag lobbies are among the top three strongest (aarp/drugs, oil/military, and ag) but really, would all our corporate farms go belly up the minute we stopped throwing gobs of money at them in the form of price controls, tariffs, and subsidies?

sharon

July 8, 2007, 6:54pm (report abuse)

the National subsidies for industrially grown foods cost Americans $725 per family. While small farmers are trying to get a peice of that, the best way to help them is to buy from them.

nancy

July 23, 2007, 8:59am (report abuse)

The US has the cheapest and safest food in the world thanks to American agriculture. Farmers deserve out thanks. Do you really want to be dependent on another country for essential food?

Steve

July 23, 2007, 9:32am (report abuse)

If more of the money from these subsidies actually went to hurting farmers who need it rather than to huge corporations or wealthy landowners who don't even have farming as their primary source of income... then maybe I'd be more willing to support it.

liberty

July 23, 2007, 10:30am (report abuse)

Someone, please write a " Points Against" to rebut the absurd commentary from the "Farm Policy Facts" people. How is subsiding farmers "saving the US taxpayers $25 billion" -- how are they doing that math? And they also have a quote about not penalizing farmers-- it wouldn't be penalizing them to stop throwing huge subsidies at them! That is simply redefining words.

I don't have enough facts to make a proper rebuttal, but someone really should.

Diane

July 25, 2007, 12:51am (report abuse)

Parts of this bill and H.R.2401(NOURISH Act of 2007) essentially gives our Rural land, LOTS of money and other benefits to: "socially disadvantaged" (defined in bill) farmers & ranchers. Read carefully.

Tim

July 25, 2007, 9:48am (report abuse)

If you're a person who likes the city life and don't mind paying $3+ per gallon for gas and $50 for a steak and you enjoy polluted air and water then you probably won't want this bill to pass. Our american farmers and owners of open lands are our greatest chance for energy independance and a greener planet and deserve our support on this bill. On the other hand if you would like to see more of your american dollars going to OPEC please feel free not to support this bill.

Diane

July 25, 2007, 11:44am (report abuse)

This is granting MEGA FARMS the same moneies as family farms--VOTE NO!

runr

July 29, 2007, 3:29pm (report abuse)

Farm welfare still a sacred cow, but to the extent its welfare for the already rich its a travesty that an enlightened governance body could at least tweak a little to the public benefit.

Marie

August 3, 2007, 2:26pm (report abuse)

I am an ag specialist with the US Gov't, grew up on a family farm, and have a Masters in Agriculture Education. Although this doesn't mean I know all there is to know about the Farm Bill, I do know quite a bit about farming operations. Subsidies are necessary to sustain producers through the growing season to cover their operational expenses. They take out loans every year to buy the necessary materials to plant their crops. They don't receive any cash, or return on that investment until the end of the growing season, after the harvest. If the weather fluctuates anyway from normal, or even if it stays normal too long, the crop, and harvest price are affected!

Wendy

August 3, 2007, 2:28pm (report abuse)

We already depend on other countries for our food. A lot of foods come from other countries, check the labels. As long as Americans crave products that we can't grow here all year long, we will continue to import them. There may be some wealthy land owners. Others are farmers who have had to put every dime they earn back into their self-employed business to cover overhead, and operating expenses, and since their equipment has usually completely depreciated by the time they retire, all they have is their land, and they are going to keep it until they retire because they can no longer physically farm.

Carissa

August 3, 2007, 2:29pm (report abuse)

I feel that it is the mega farms who are able to produce the highest quality product at the least cost to feed the most people here, and in other countries, not the tiny family/hobby farms of recent yesteryears with one or two chickens, a couple of cows, and a few acres of corn and beans, etc. I also believe there is no such thing as a rich farmer: high property taxes, enormous risk to let weather take over, liability insurance, asset depreciation, risks, side effects of many years of physical labor, day in and day out year round for 40 or 50 years.

Laura

August 3, 2007, 2:29pm (report abuse)

We are moving away from an agrarian society to a more service based economy. That is good for commerce, but bad for our pocket books, kitchen tables, and eventually bad for our government as fewer and fewer individuals fully comprehend production agriculture take up for it in Congress. Try to Google the average age of an American farmer...they are most certainly a dying breed.

Andrew

August 6, 2007, 10:11pm (report abuse)

What we must remember is that a strong farm bill is good for all citizens of the USA. We need a strong crop insurance program to back up agriculture and a good farm bill to support such a program. We need a crop insurance program that can weather the storm of not having to provide ad hoc disaster payments. Please don't make any cuts to the crop insurance program it is to vital to our rural areas, the last several years farms all across the US would have been broke without it. We need a farm bill with less direct payments and more emphasis on federal crop insurance program. Where farmers and the taxpayer share the cost of this insurance it is a win-win for both parties and unlike government payments where farmers don't pick up the bill.

John

August 6, 2007, 10:17pm (report abuse)

What we need is a farm bill that helps our farmers while keeping costs of food low. A strong crop insurance program could accomplish this. I am a farmer of over 2000 acres of wheat and I am a medium sized farmer and what I would like to see is more money put into crop insurance and less into direct payments, I oppose cuts to the A&O and I support a fully funded crop insurance program, where it has saved my fanny the last several years. I sure enjoy the service and support that my agent and adjuster have given me over the last few years. I see that Peterson and some in the House want to cut money from this program and if this happens I will vote differently next election. The program is working fine and by cutting the A&O my agent may be out of business where I may have a hard time getting insurance next year. Thanks.

Mike C.

August 6, 2007, 10:23pm (report abuse)

Hello, I am Mike C. and I want to comment on the farm bill. The bill is pretty good overall, except for some key issues that will effect me here in rural Minnesota. My elected official Mr. Peterson has proposed cutting money out of the crop insurance program and this could take money out our local economy by hurting my agent. I adamotally oppose these cuts, because without crop insurance my 1500 acre farm would have been in trouble several years in the past. I hope the Senate will vote this down and make no changes to crop insurance program, I am not very happy with Mr. Peterson on this issue right now, we will see how it is ironed out. Thanks for hearing my concerns. PS. I enjoy the service my agent and the fine folks at the company they represent.

Douglas

August 22, 2007, 6:26pm (report abuse)

The Depression ended 67 years ago. Time to pull the plug.

Steve

October 10, 2007, 7:46pm (report abuse)

Sorry to all the socialists here, but government subsidies are not required for farming. Farmers are required for farming; government is not.

The argument that we 'need' government to redistribute wealth from the general public to ADM and other corportations (about 90% of subsidies go to corporations according to studies I have recently read)

Ariel

October 17, 2007, 5:14pm (report abuse)

The biggest problem with the subsidies is that the government ONLY subsidizes EIGHT commodity crops. Not a SINGLE farmer growing fruit or vegetables gets government subsidies. And we wonder why Americans are so fat.

Mia

November 5, 2007, 8:30pm (report abuse)

My tax dollars go to my neighbor who has land in RCP. He buys trucks for his farm with his RCP money (and other subsidies) and competes with me in the trucking business with my own tax dollars. How is this fair? He has a safety net and the rest of us are expected to operate without one. I want a free market for all of us. Not a free market for some and a socialist market for the preferred few who get to go to Arizona in the winter.

Jay R. Smith

November 6, 2007, 4:40am (report abuse)

I'm personally sick of hearing farmers whine like cattle. They get the biggest breaks of any industry in America. They harbor Illegal immigrants and get paid for doing NOTHING, for the most part.

They don't like it? Oh, well..

I'll buy my crops and meat from some other country. It's all about free enterprise. It's about time they realized that. If they can't do it, somebody else will..

I don't much care anymore.

Jay R. Smith

November 6, 2007, 4:51am (report abuse)

Oh, and when some farmer can justify to me why I have to pay $3.00 a pound (ONE tomato the size of your fist) for a simple (now tasteless) tomato, then I might be willing to listen. Otherwise, go tell it to some other bleeding heart...

You people are destroying yourselves. Trust me. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason for these outrageous prices except for utter greed.

Wendy Stark

November 15, 2007, 9:50am (report abuse)

Clearly Mr. Jay R. Smith doesn't understand any laws of economics!!! American farmers ARE NOT asking for their own prices for the commodities they sell! They are price takers, meaning that the price for their goods is determined by factors completely out of their control! If you think you are paying top dollar now for your food, go and check out just how much your food would cost if ALL of it was imported! India imports nearly all of its food, which is EXPENSIVE as heck causing their citizens to spend at least 50% of their take home pay a year on food exclusively! Can your budget afford this? Mine wouldn't!

Kate

November 25, 2007, 3:32pm (report abuse)

Today in America, only four corporations control 84% of the cereals market, 60% of the pork market, 84% of the cereals market, 52% of the poultry slaughter market and 66% of the rice market. These are not poor, underprivileged family farmers, don't kid yourselves. Approximately 80% of all farm subsidies go to the nations top 5% largest land owners. When you trace the paper trails you'll find that those corporate farms are ultimately either owned or controlled by the same multi-national corporate conglomerates that already own or control the oil, the banks, the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry. Farm subsidies are not about saving the poor family farmer. Farm subsidies are about lining the pockets of the same good old boy network that controls NAFTA and the WTO. Henry Kissinger said, "Food is power. You can control nations with it." Unfortunately, the greedy and the powerful listened to him.

Gary

March 24, 2008, 10:24am (report abuse)

i agree with nancy

why would you want food from another country for

Patricia

March 24, 2008, 11:37am (report abuse)

Kate is absolutely right!

We should stop all ag subsidies immediately.

Who among you think that we should subsidize sugar and tobacco? We taxpayers are also spending money to find cures for diabetes and cancer.

We are stupid, stupid, stupid.

Pat

March 24, 2008, 12:24pm (report abuse)

Please read this information from Citizens Against Government Waste:

The truth is that farm subsidies don’t help small farmers, but instead help the wealthiest farmers get richer, enabling them to expand their operations and gobble up more farmland, and turning the small towns of rural America into ghost towns. Subsidies hurt poor people in America and poor farmers in developing nations, all at an exceedingly high cost to U.S. taxpayers.

shawn

March 25, 2008, 5:33pm (report abuse)

end this welfare program now! $1,829.89/person!

tim

March 27, 2008, 3:06pm (report abuse)

With the price of corn and wheat going so high, it seems that land should be taken out of the land bank, and put to use. Why is the gov't paying $500 an acre to be unused at this time?

Peter

April 11, 2008, 10:58am (report abuse)

This makes it very easy for tax payers to equate $5700 for a farm subsidy bill to 1/3 of a new compact car or 10 years of free cable service - or simply $100/month toward the family *food* budget. In that light, I wonder how many tax payers would truely value (and continute purchasing) farm subsidy legislation?

Scott W.

April 12, 2008, 4:17pm (report abuse)

To understand more where our money is going, please check out the Bill Moyers report (Exposé). It makes me sick to my stomach...

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04112008/watch2.html

Jim

April 25, 2008, 11:32pm (report abuse)

Just returned from D.C. and though I'm neither pro or con on farm subsidies I think people should know the Farm Bill is actually 23%ag,9%conservation, and 68% social programs.(food stamps and ect)

Michael

May 12, 2008, 7:20pm (report abuse)

End corporate welfare! As the system works now, corporate farms make more money by not farming their land than by being productive.

John

May 13, 2008, 12:12pm (report abuse)

This will cost you one way or the other. End it and food costs go higher. A better idea would be to regulate it so the small farmers receive more and the big conglomerates much less.

Abigail

May 14, 2008, 5:01pm (report abuse)

The farm bill isn't about agriculture. Read the analysis of the bill. Title IV Nutrition Program is by far the largest portion of the farm bill. Get food stamps out of USDA so Americans can receive a true accounting of agriculture programs!

Jim is Right

May 15, 2008, 5:03pm (report abuse)

If you read the bill or even just look at all of the sections you will notice where all the money is going.

Shepard Humphries

May 27, 2008, 3:21pm (report abuse)

Republicans voted Nay

Democrats voted Yay

Libertarians voted Nay

RINO's voted Yay

Brian

May 28, 2008, 12:34pm (report abuse)

liberty said-

"I don't have enough facts to make a proper rebuttal, but someone really should."

Are you suggesting someone should invent facts to support your opinion?

Nicole

May 29, 2008, 6:39am (report abuse)

Is the cost per family for ONE year or for FIVE years? It is unreasonable to expect readers to scroll down to the small print to learn that the Farm Bill cost is for five years of spending. And it is misleading to post a five-year budget number in large, bold font without any indication of what the actual ANNUAL cost would be per family.

@Nicole

May 29, 2008, 8:02am (report abuse)

From the "about" page - linked at the top and bottom of this page:

"We take [government] predictions and calculate their 'net present value.' That is the value today of changes to future spending, taxes, or regulation. Then, we divide that 'net present value' calculation by the total number of people in the United States."

There's plenty more information on that page. You might want to check it out.

Stud

May 30, 2008, 2:06pm (report abuse)

I'm subsidizing farmers every time I go food shopping. Time to stop the handouts - food prices are high enough.

RSS Feeds for This Bill

Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)