Hmmm. It's now OK to give California farmers disaster payments? When Midwest farmers this past summer were struggling in the seventh year of drought, you blasted disaster programs. Where's the justice.

I do agree that if disaster payments are going to be made available, they should be available to all. And that truly means all.

EWG is the only environmental group I know of that actually SUPPORTED disaster aid for farmers with proven losses in 2005/2006. We opposed the proposal to give farmers who get "fixed" direct payments--and only those farmers--a 30 percent boost on grounds that energy costs went up. As we said on April 26 of last year: "We support helping farmers and ranchers hit by weather-related crop and livestock losses in 2005. We would also support reasonable energy assistance if all producers were made eligible, if they documented their need, and if reasonable limits were placed on the amount of aid."
And, while again SUPPORTING weather-related disaster aid for farmers and ranchers we also pointed out that most recipients of disaster aid collect it infrequently, so the real need is to address the agronomic realities of those who have collected every other year, or more often, for the past two decades. We did oppose taking money from conservation, research, rural development and food stamps to pay for disaster aid. As we put it on Sept 26, 2006: "EWG supports reasonable disaster aid for farmers and ranchers with proven, weather-related losses, unless provision of that assistance entails offsetting cuts to conservation, nutrition, rural development or other non-commodity program funds that have been slashed by Congress repeatedly for years."

There are quite a few farms in our area that have been effected by the drought here in Wisconsin the last 3 years. We as farmers have cut our spending to products and services and still have plenty of bills that still need to be paid. Each time these bill collectors and salesmen come to our farm we ask, You want us to continue to buy products from you, then lets get some aid coming our way, until then we can't buy from you if we are broke.

Farming is a business. Like all businesses the owners should make sound business decisions and not be protected by the gov't. Trying to grow crops in an arrid region that requires constant irrigation and then accepting gov't money to pay for the never ending droughts is crazy. I never heard of Satanta, KS until I noticed that two families were on the top 6 money handouts. I looked on the map and noticed that they were in the near-desert like area of south west KS. It's too dry to grow crops there. I'm sure if you have millions of dollars of free money to buy irrigation equipment, you could make it work, but is that really a good use of taxpayer money?

I just read Doug's posting, I live in Wisconsin, not a desert, unless the government and city folk want to say that of our farms here. Quit simple, it has stopped raining here, our crops failed, so what Doug proposes is that all farmers pack up and move to where it is Raining or just give up. God, I know that its easy to say that taxpayers shouldn't bail out farmers, however, you are getting cheaper food prices for it, would you much rather pay the cost of what food really is worth? and have that price set by rich agri business's. Mark my words, if you get what you wish, we will be in that position, look at the oil companies, want those type of people to control our food supply too, just keep telling the government to stop subsidies, youll find out.

I have farmed all my life, I am 70 years old and all my children left the farm for better paying jobs, I have no body to continue the farm with so yet another farm will be lost, as many in my area have. We have been in a area of drought for about 3 years now, I too live in Wisconsin, and isnt it funny, after I sell out this spring, I will still owe money, isnt that a great way to get paid back after a lifetime of hard work? A disaster payment would have allowed me to pay off my creditors, now i must just pass the buck and let them try to asorb the loss as I am filing bankruptcy. I dread to see who will produce our food in the future, if anyone at all. It just angered me so much after reading Doug's post, yes, I take his opinion, but its not right. I had a good business plan, however drought destroyed it.

I am a implement dealer, in Wisconsin. I too am suffering from the drought here in Wisconsin, I am on the brink of bankruptcy myself as the customers I had have either went out of business or filed bankruptcy on my. Its extremly hard to sell equipment to guys that have no money. In the farming business, we forget that they also supply money to the community, I know I did, after times have got tough, I have had to lay off 6 workers and I too will probably file bankruptcy.

Well, most new, small business fail in country. I think it is only appropriate that everyone that has a failed business get disaster relief. If farmers get it, why shouldn't everyone else? Oh yeah, it's because everyone else has to pay for the farmers.

For all the language about Americans having the cheapest food in the world, they are dead wrong. While we might spend less of our total income on food, prices are not the cheapest. That is the result of prosperity, not farm subsidies. For instance, sugar is about 3 times more expensive in the US than the world price. Farmers need to stop using this is the cheapest food in the world argument (don't forget to add the $167B to the total bill) as it does not pan out.

The sad thing is that most of the money is not going to the small, family farmer who, no doubt, is struggling. In this respect, farming is no different than any other industry in that there is an economy of scale advantage. Small farms cannot compete.

The real question for the American people (that is every man, woman and child) would be this.."would you rather have $55 in cash every year, or would you rather we give that money to the farmers as the governement see fit?"

At 460 "farmers" deep in the EWG database, the 10-year subsidies are still over $4.5 million. I think $450K per year puts you in the top 1% of wage earners in this country. Ask the poor, single mother whether she wants the $55 (plus $55 x the number of kids)or should she just give it to the farmer.....

Sorry I have to go. Time to start my rice and cotton farm and move to the Western Congressional District of Kansas. That way I can hit the trifecta.

Just a comment to the March 23 post. Farmers buy at retail and sell at wholesale, the government has seen to it that farmers cannot charge any type of markup on there products they sell, hence the reason for subsidies. In the last few years, farmers have been selling there corn for less then what it costed to produce. In simple terms, If I bought a grocery store and bought a can of peas for 75 cents and the cutomer came in and said, a can of peas is only woth 25 cents today, you wouldnt be in business long, but this is how some people in america think farming should work. Some american think the people who feed us should not make money, however, its ok for other business to. I agree with you, maybe the government should stop handing out money, but the fear here is that then the people who produce our food would be controlled by very few. Mao in China tryed this, the Country of China was hurled into starvation and I think our government is afraid of that happening here.

Its so crazy when you read these posts, $55.00 dollars for every man woman and child to pay for insurance for a assurance that you will not go hungry, outrageous. When you put that into context thats costs each man, woman, child in United States .15 cents per day. Some day the city folk will know what expensive food costs if they do away with farm programs. In china, you only eat what you can afford, food in that country is a luxury, isnt that sad, food is so abundunt in this country and people take it for granted. 15 cents a day, come on. My family farmed, my dad sold the farm because he couldnt make a go of it, even with subsidies. He died with no Health Insurance, no nothing and farmed 40 years, I thank you for making me realize how much you appreciate his hard work.

I live in a farming community and run a business that supplies farmers. What I have noticed each and every time farmmers are given money, they spend it fast, its not really given to them, its given to there suppliers, feed mills, implement dealers, bankers, its not that farmers are princes and have lavish lifestyles. I have noticed whenever bills like these are passed, the money farmers owe me are paid up, right now, about 90% of my customers are on brink of finacial disaster, which translates that other bussiness in town will fail to. Its not just about food supply, its about making other jobs too.

I was just wondering why the $ in the farm bill that was to be available for LDP's and counter-cyclar payments can't be used for the dought stricken farmers and ranchers. Fellow farmer's that are fortunate to have good crops and also a great price should realize that they and their landlords are in a great position for large incomes while the dought and high feed prices are devastating to those that these great prices without a crop are an extra negitive. The farmer doesn't need a disaster payment after his banker sells him out. Timing not politics!! Just wondering about how the farm can survive and provide for your own farm is sometimes a full time job for some small farmers, so why would their sons and daughters even consider following in these footsteps? So the best option is to rent or sell to someone big enough or dumb enough to take these risk. In our area I don't see much poor managment any more but I do see higher inputs and more risks. I've heard it said and I must agree that you don't criticize a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes.

Mark, it's just a function of how the budget works. Countercyclical and marketing loan payments that are NOT paid because prices are above the threshold set by congress do not result in those "unspent" funds being carried over and made available in the budget for other purposes. Put another way, "unspent" CCP or LDP funds don't provide an "offset" for spending on disaster or anything else. If offsets are to be required,congress would have to look elsewhere, and if it is within agriculture, it has tended to be conservation, rural development, etc. that has been cut to pay for disaster funding. The pending House and Senate disaster payment language in the Iraq spending/pull-out bill would not require an offset.

Permanent Disaster aid, I believe is a excellent idea, and should be implemented in the new farm bill. Its my concern we keep supporting other countrys and leave our farms to go bankrupt we put ourselves into relying on other country's to feed us. Please look at how the pet food was contaminated, would you rather have your food produced there, or in United States where it is regulated by the highest standards in the world. I read the Farm Program as a whole would cost each American 11 cents per meal per day, isnt that worth the the cost to assure that you are eating safe food? I understand the EWG is hear to descredit and have farm subsidies stopped, I ask this group, would you rather have another country supply us with food? I am a salesman, and I have seen what drought and low prices for farmers has done, they have sold out to the highest bidder, and not to other farms either. Wake up, smell the coffee everyone needs to eat!!

I own a small agri-service firm in Wisconsin. I have a hard time finding any other government program that has a cost:benefit ratio that is better than the farm assistance programs that offer relief for weather related losses. If given the choice between spending a few bucks to help the farming community vs lining Haliburton's pockets,which seems like a better choice?

I have yet to see the economic multplier effect from this war. When farmers have money, I see the effect immediately.

These programs help to secure our food supply, unless of course, the population wants to rely on imported food. The recent pet food tragedy should shed some light on why it isn't always a good idea to rely on your trading partners for items of sustenance.

Radios and TV's are ok, but when we start talking about getting our food from China and other less-than- reliable sources, we as a nation need to be concerned.

When our food supply becomes tainted, will we still think that the few tax bucks we saved from letting our Ag infrastructure go down the crapper was money worth saving?

does more to secure our food supply

I own a small grocery store and I farm as a hobby. I grew up on a farm so therefore I am still farm oriented, I believe permanent Disaster Aid written into new farm bill will help rural america, as as soon as a disaster strikes, aid can be sent immediately. At this moment, we our town has so many auctions of farmers going out of business that the bulliten boards are buried in auction listings. I think, if only aid could have gotten there sooner and we had a President that understood food is grown, not bought at a grocery store. NO pun intended..

Today is a sad day and a happy day as i learned that President Bush signed the ad hoc disaster legislation, however, his arm had to be twisted. I wish people could really understand that when you look on ewg website as to who gets the most money does not stay in the farmers pocket for very long. I have a cousin that is on the verge of the bank starting foreclosure on him, as he has been late with his mortgage, has not been able to pay his crop inputs from last year, because of previous years of drought and low commodity prices. The Bank sees that as unprofitable and so therfore has decided not to renew his loan, and since he has a couple marks of bad credit, and two disaster years, other banks refuse to give him a loan as well, if people really understood the dilema facing farmers, instead of looking up a website and getting one side of the story.