Without The Strings Things Might Be Different
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
With the on-going discussions taking place in Washington, D.C. over legislative authority to increase the nation’s debt-ceiling and allow for further government borrowing…attention is being given to the importance of cutting spending. In conversations about reductions of government spending it isn’t uncommon to have the point raised about the subsidy programs that go to agricultural producers.
Given the way that our federal government has to borrow 40-cents for every dollar it spends -- since revenue coming in doesn’t match the outgo being spent – all areas of government spending need to receive attention. Recently a group of 33 farm organizations, representing their farmer and rancher members, sent a letter to President Obama and others in leadership roles, urging timely action on a long-term, comprehensive solution to the federal debt issue.
Those involved, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, reminded the decision makers that agriculture has a track-record of taking more than its fair share of reductions -- $6 Billion in reductions of the budget baseline last year.
In urging action the letter from the agricultural leaders stressed the importance of providing the House and Senate Agricultural Committees with the responsibility of determining how reductions should be made to agricultural funding. In the construction of the next Farm Bill, these key experts on the topic of farm programs are the best equipped to evaluate specific details for changes.
When you look at the current Federal $3,729 Billion budget, the portion going to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) ($144.2 Billion) amounts to 3.9 percent. Further, of the amount going to USDA, roughly 10 percent is spent on agricultural programs – 74 percent of the USDA budget is paid out in Food Assistance and Nutrition programs. (Information provided by American Farm Bureau Federation’s Food & Farm Facts.)
As evaluations are made for what can be gained by cutting back on levels of federal dollars paid out to agricultural producers, this Phil Brasher post caught my attention, highlighting some of the consequences that come with not paying some of the payments which currently are part of the mix. Each dollar that comes out of Washington, D.C. has strings attached, attempting to influence the results that central-planning has in mind. When the dollars aren’t available, you no longer have the strings (or should we say “incentives”) to perform the desired actions…
In many ways it would be good to see agriculture (and the economy as a whole) become weaned of the dollars coming from the federal treasury. Significant spending reductions for all of the things currently related to the federal government, when also combined with the reduced tax burdens to cover the expenses, would put us all in a more self-sufficient place, letting those who earn the dollars spend their dollars for themselves – as they see fit.
With the on-going discussions taking place in Washington, D.C. over legislative authority to increase the nation’s debt-ceiling and allow for further government borrowing…attention is being given to the importance of cutting spending. In conversations about reductions of government spending it isn’t uncommon to have the point raised about the subsidy programs that go to agricultural producers.
Given the way that our federal government has to borrow 40-cents for every dollar it spends -- since revenue coming in doesn’t match the outgo being spent – all areas of government spending need to receive attention. Recently a group of 33 farm organizations, representing their farmer and rancher members, sent a letter to President Obama and others in leadership roles, urging timely action on a long-term, comprehensive solution to the federal debt issue.
Those involved, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, reminded the decision makers that agriculture has a track-record of taking more than its fair share of reductions -- $6 Billion in reductions of the budget baseline last year.
In urging action the letter from the agricultural leaders stressed the importance of providing the House and Senate Agricultural Committees with the responsibility of determining how reductions should be made to agricultural funding. In the construction of the next Farm Bill, these key experts on the topic of farm programs are the best equipped to evaluate specific details for changes.
When you look at the current Federal $3,729 Billion budget, the portion going to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) ($144.2 Billion) amounts to 3.9 percent. Further, of the amount going to USDA, roughly 10 percent is spent on agricultural programs – 74 percent of the USDA budget is paid out in Food Assistance and Nutrition programs. (Information provided by American Farm Bureau Federation’s Food & Farm Facts.)
As evaluations are made for what can be gained by cutting back on levels of federal dollars paid out to agricultural producers, this Phil Brasher post caught my attention, highlighting some of the consequences that come with not paying some of the payments which currently are part of the mix. Each dollar that comes out of Washington, D.C. has strings attached, attempting to influence the results that central-planning has in mind. When the dollars aren’t available, you no longer have the strings (or should we say “incentives”) to perform the desired actions…
In many ways it would be good to see agriculture (and the economy as a whole) become weaned of the dollars coming from the federal treasury. Significant spending reductions for all of the things currently related to the federal government, when also combined with the reduced tax burdens to cover the expenses, would put us all in a more self-sufficient place, letting those who earn the dollars spend their dollars for themselves – as they see fit.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 7/22/2011 6:16 AM 
Categories: Agriculture
Tags: Farm Programs Congress Government Subsidies Government Spending
Categories: Agriculture
Tags: Farm Programs Congress Government Subsidies Government Spending
Comments