The United States currently pays around $20 billion per year to farmers in direct subsidies as "farm income stabilization"[10][11][12] via U.S. farm bills. These bills date back to the economic turmoil of the Great Depression with 1922 Grain Futures Act, the 1929 Agricultural Marketing Act and the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act creating a tradition of government support.
The beneficiaries of the subsidies have changed as agriculture in the United States has changed. In the 1930s, about 25% of the country's population resided on the nation's 6,000,000 small farms. By 1997, 157,000 large farms accounted for 72% of farm sales, with only 2% of the U.S. population residing on farms. In 2006, the top 3 states receiving subsidies were Texas (10.4%), Iowa (9.0%), and Illinois (7.6%). The Total USDA Subsidies from farms in Iowa totaled $1,212,000,000 in 2006.[13] From 2003 to 2005 the top 1% of beneficiaries received 17% of subsidy payments.[13] In Texas, 72% of farms do not receive government subsidies. Of the close to $1.4 Billion in subsidy payments to farms in Texas, roughly 18% of the farms receive a portion of the payments.[14]
"Direct payment subsidies are provided without regard to the economic need of the recipients or the financial condition of the farm economy. Established in 1996, direct payments were originally meant to wean farmers off traditional subsidies that are triggered during periods of low prices for corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, rice, and other crops." [15]
Top states for direct payments were Iowa ($501 million), Illinois ($454 million), and Texas ($397 million). Direct payments of subsidies are limited to $40,000 per person or $80,000 per couple.[16]
The subsidy programs give farmers extra money for their crops and guarantee a price floor. For instance in the 2002 Farm Bill, for every bushel of wheat sold farmers were paid an extra 52 cents and guaranteed a price of 3.86 from 2002–03 and 3.92 from 2004–2007.[17] That is, if the price of wheat in 2002 was 3.80 farmers would get an extra 58 cents per bushel (52 cents plus the $0.06 price difference).
Corn is the top crop for subsidy payments. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandates that billions of gallons of ethanol be blended into vehicle fuel each year, guaranteeing demand, but US corn ethanol subsidies are between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion per year. Producers also benefit from a federal subsidy of 51 cents per gallon, additional state subsidies and, federal crop subsidies that can bring the total to 85 cents per gallon or more.[18] (US corn-ethanol producers are also shielded from competition from cheaper Brazilian sugarcane-ethanol by a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff[19][20])
$20 billion a year. What if, instead of subsidizing farmers not to grow various crops, or to grow others, what if that farm subsidy money was used to encourage the creation of wind and solar farms? We always hear about the decline of family farms and what-not, and the reality of American energy independence is something that's been in dire need of being addressed for the past 40 years, so, I'm thinking of a reform to the farm subsidy program to have them develop actual alternative energy sources (wind and solar -- FUCK ethanol. Let me repeat that: FUCK ethanol).
Benefits: 1) help move American energy policy into the 21st century; 2) help with climate change; 3) help our country attain energy independence; 4) help the farms produce something of value (instead of being paid either to NOT grow things and/or to grow unnecessary things); 5) decentralize our country's energy grid, giving more power (literally and figuratively) to the local level (and making our energy infrastructure resistant to terrorist attacks); 6) contribute to rapid investment in and advancement of alternative energy in this country.
Try as I might, I just can't see anything wrong with this, EXCEPT that it steps on the toes of the fossil fuel industry, AND it would decentralize our energy grid.
The disaster in the Gulf qualifies as actual eco-terrorism, although it won't be seen as such, but the damage it'll do is worse than what happened on 9/11, hate to say it. More people will be impacted, more lives ruined, on and on and on. It's a clarion call (or should be) that our country absolutely must develop a proper alternative energy infrastructure. I've heard estimates that it's a $1 trillion market just waiting to be tapped -- and yet, it's always kept off the table. The technology is here, the need is here, the national will for change is even there. Win, win, win.
Must be why it's not being done.
