What's in this database?
The lists of top subsidy beneficiaries have changed dramatically. Just about every ranking of subsidy payments has changed in this new database because, for the first time, USDA has tracked subsidy benefits as they pass through tens of thousands of farm business entities—agribusiness cooperatives, partnerships, joint ventures and corporations—and has assigned virtually all farm subsidy 'benefits' to individuals. The Farm Bill 2007 Policy Analysis Database bases all of its rankings and analyses on this new benefits tracking data.
Specifically, some 358,057 individuals now have a dollar value for subsidy benefits associated with their names for the first time in our system—and they received $9.8 billion in crop subsidy benefits alone between 2003 and 2005. In the database, those individuals have a double asterisk after their name, indicating that all of their subsidy benefits were in the form of pass-through(s) from a farm business(es) in which they had an ownership interest. A single asterisk means both payments made directly and pass-through subsidies are attributed to the individual by USDA. Listings with no asterisk are for individuals or entities that received all of their subsidy directly from USDA.
The most important distinction we make in our analysis is between subsidies paid to farm businesses and subsidy benefits passed through those businesses to individuals (and, very occasionally, to other types of entities). You can see the distinction on pages like these.
The link "Top Farm Businesses, PY 2003-2005" displays the first 20 businesses, ranked by amount of subsidy payments they received from USDA in program years 2003 and 2005. Click on any farm business and you will see a list of people to whom USDA attributed subsidy benefits that were passed through to them by the respective farm business. Once you're on any farm business page you can also link back to the original Farm Subsidy Database to any relevant payment information we may have for the operation for calendar years and other programs. A separate link presents the ownership structure of the farm business that was provided to us by USDA in May, 2006 (in the so-called "permitted entity file"). However, the Section 1614 Benefits Tracking Data, the basis for our new site, does not list the intermediary businesses you see in the old database—partnerships, joint ventures, corporations and the like—or their shares of subsidy payments. It simply provides the parent farm business and any individual(s) to whom USDA attributed benefits that passed through that businesses.
The link "Top Farm Businesses, PY 2003-2005" displays the first 20 businesses nationwide, ranked by amount of subsidy payments they received from USDA in program years 2003 and 2005. Click on any farm business and you will see a list of people to whom USDA attributed subsidy benefits that were passed through to them by the respective farm business. Once you're on any farm business page you can also link back to the original Farm Subsidy Database to any relevant payment information we may have for the operation for calendar years and other programs. A separate link takes you to a feature in our original Farm Subsidy Database (2006 update) that presents the ownership structure of the farm business that USDA made public in May, 2006 through the department's "permitted entity file."
To see the difference the new Section 1614 data make, compare the following lists of "top recipients" from our original Farm Subsidy Database to the "top beneficiaries" in the Farm Bill 2007 Policy Analysis Database (and note that the latter permits quick links to the Farm Subsidy Database for farm businesses and individual beneficiaries):
Top crop subsidy recipients, United States, 2005
Original Farm Subsidy Database
Top crop subsidy beneficiaries, United States, 2005
New Farm Bill 2007 Policy Analysis Database
Top rice subsidy recipients, Arkansas, 2005
Original Farm Subsidy Database
Top rice subsidy beneficiaries in Arkansas, 2005
New Farm Bill 2007 Policy Analysis Database
Top crop subsidy recipients, Georgia, 2005
Original Farm Subsidy Database
Top crop subsidy beneficiaries, Georgia, 2005
New Farm Bill 2007 Policy Analysis Database
Cooperatives are not listed in the new database. Large cooperatives, like Riceland Foods of Arkansas, which was the top subsidy recipient nationwide in the original EWG Farm Subsidy Database, are not found in USDA's Section 1614 Benefits Tracking Database, and therefore are not listed in EWG's Farm Bill 2007 Policy Analysis Database. USDA's Section 1614 database provides data on payments made to cooperatives and passed through them to individuals and farm businesses, but does not indicate which companies or individuals are cooperative members.
USDA backgrounders. In the left column of this site is a link, Data Used in This Website (USDA backgrounders) that in turn links to USDA reference material on the Section 1614 Benefits Tracking Database. We recommend the "Q & A" document in particular.
Time period and subsidies covered. The original Farm Subsidy Database now covers calendar years 1995-2005 (eleven years) of subsidy payments. The Farm Bill 2007 Policy Analysis Database you're looking at now covers program years (a USDA term of art) 2003 through 2005. USDA provided incomplete data for program years 2002 and 2006 in the underlying Section 1614 database; we have not included it. When we have complete data for program year 2006, we'll add it to the database.
The original database also covered subsidies for more programs, notably ad hoc disaster subsidies. The new database, following the congressional mandate of the 2002 Farm Bill, covers only Title I (commodity) and Title II (conservation) subsidies.
What's the difference between a recipient and a beneficiary? In EWG's farm subsidy analysis system, a recipient is a person or a farm business whose name is on a USDA subsidy check or electronic fund transfer payment. They were paid subsidies, in their own name, directly by USDA.
A beneficiary is a person or (very occasionally) a farm business that has been attributed a subsidy benefit, with a dollar value, by USDA (not by EWG) through the department's Section 1614 Benefits Tracking Database. Subsidy benefits pass through to these individuals from a farm business that has directly received the subsidy payments. The dollar value of a subsidy benefit is directly proportional to a beneficiary's share of ownership in the farm business that received a subsidy (and the business may or may not own the farm's land or other resources). Beneficiaries may or may not receive the value of their benefits as cash payments (see next topic).
Our original Farm Subsidy Database and all of its rankings and analyses was based on payments to recipients, which included individuals and all manner of farm businesses--coops, partnerships, corporations, joint ventures, trusts, estates and so forth. The new Farm Bill 2007 Policy Analysis database is based on the new Section 1614 benefits data, which we obtained from USDA in December, 2006 after a series of Freedom of Information Act requests we filed as early as 2003.
Do subsidy beneficiaries receive the benefits USDA attributes to them as cash payments? Not necessarily.
USDA has no information on how an individual or a farm business uses any of the subsidy payments they receive, any more than the Social Security Administration has information on how social security or SSI benefits are expended by recipients. As long as an individual or business meets eligibility requirements for USDA subsidy programs, they can utilize subsidy payments as they see fit—including for purposes entirely unrelated to farming. That is, the government has no rules or requirements as to how farm subsidies must be spent by an individual or business recipient. Nor do any rules require or govern cash payments, if any, from subsidized farm businesses to individuals who have been attributed benefits by USDA.
A farm business with multiple owners like this one, or even a single owner, might divide subsidies received among those owners and make cash payments in direct proportion to their ownership share—that is, in amounts equal to the benefits USDA has attributed to those owners through the Section 1614 process. Or payments might be made to those owners on some other basis, which could be unrelated either to subsidy payments to the business or ownership shares. Alternatively, the subsidized farm business might make no payments at all to owners; might provide salaries to some or all of them; or might invest all or part of the subsidy in the operation. Or the subsidy money could be devoted to purposes altogether unrelated to farming.
Why is it sometimes said that with farm subsidies, Christmas comes in July? This excellent question evidently refers to the common timing of important congressional action in farm bill cycles (July) and the fabled "Mississippi Christmas Tree" ownership structure of large farm businesses, mostly growing cotton and rice and found primarily, though not exclusively, across the South.
Historically, these very large operations included multiple owners who divided their farms into multiple businesses in order to have enough individuals to maximize per person federal farm subsidy payments, which are much higher per acre for cotton and rice, while complying with various per person payment limitations. Principal and major owners of these farm businesses (at the top of the Christmas tree) received the most payments or benefits, while owners or partners with smaller shares received lesser amounts.
In the Section 1614 Benefits Tracking Database, USDA attributes subsidy benefits to individuals that passed through any and all subsidized farm businesses that the individual has an ownership interest in. These are the businesses that received a USDA payment and are referred to as "parent entities" by USDA. USDA's Section 1614 database does not provide benefit attributions for any intermediary businesses. It simply present benefits to individuals that pass through however many farm businesses ("parent entities") the individual may have an ownership interest in.
The best way to see ownership structures (including "Mississippi Christmas Trees") is to click on the link at the top of each farm business or beneficiary page that says "Ownership structure info, 2006". That will take you to the appropriate page in EWG's original Farm Subsidy Database that displays ownership interests found in the USDA "permitted entity file" that EWG obtained in May, 2006. Note that percentages, and not dollar amounts, are listed next to farm businesses and individuals. USDA utilized the percentage ownership shares in a version of this file to attribute benefits passed through one or more farm businesses to individuals. The permitted entity data is a snapshot of farm business ownership shares that may not be in effect today, but it is the most recent, and the only publicly available, nationwide data on this subject available from USDA.
For example, this link takes you to the top subsidized farm business in Georgia for 2003-2006. Click on the top farm business - PGC Farms - and you will see the Section 1614 benefits attribution. If you go to the Analysis Links at the top of the page and click on "Ownership Structure Info 2006", a new page will open in the original EWG Farm Subsidy Database displaying the information we received from USDA in May, 2006 in the department's "permitted entity file."
While limitations still apply to some payments, making multiple owners desirable, the necessity for creating these complex ownership structures has been reduced by the advent of commodity certificate subsidies, which an individual or a farm business can receive in unlimited amounts. But search top farm business entities in any Southern state--Mississippi, for instance--and you will see many examples of operations five, ten or more owners and very substantial pass-through subsidies to multiple beneficiaries.
Or you can go to this feature of the Farm Bill 2007 Policy Analysis Database and sort farm businesses according to the number of beneficiaries to which USDA attributes pass-through subsidy benefits. For example, some 4,178 farm businesses have ten or more pass-through beneficiaries. Those firms collectively received $400 million between 2003 and 2005.
Mean Adjusted Gross Income Data For ZIP codes of Entities and Recipients. EWG obtained aggregate data from the Internal Revenue Serve on the adjusted gross income (AGI) on tax returns filed by zipcode. We matched mean AGI in each zipcode to the zipcode(s) of subsidized farm businesses and beneficiaries.
Comments
Mr. Cook,
You forgot to state that also in this new database is the average income in the area and how many children are in poverty. You have it on my database page. I am a 25 year old farmer that started farming corn and soybeans at age 19. Not with Dad or family or anyone. I have an established business now but I own no real estate. Equipment payments consume most of my income. My equipment loan would be the same as a new business start-up loan to all you non-farm people. I do not live a life of luxury, I work hard to keep the lifestyle I have. Can you please put on my database page that I employ the father of two poverty stricken kids. I give him a paycheck, food, money for the kids' Christmas. I also can't control where that paycheck gets spent. I also utilize no-till practices and grow food-grade white corn. Yes, remember farmers grow food, not grocery stores. So if you think I make $50K a year and ignore the 5,900 kids in poverty in my area you are wrong. So could you please post the information I gave you next to my name in your database. I don't care if the world knows how much subsidy payments I have received. I just don't like the personal attack on every subsidy recipient you have done.
Respectfully,
Adam Michael Betzer Sleeth
Posted by: Adam Sleeth | June 13, 2007 2:05 AM
"I just don't like the personal attack on every subsidy recipient you have done."
i was raised on a farm also. But back then, the "rural welfare" payments we received for NOT farming portions of the farm was called the LAND BANK program.
Which has morphed into this giant behemoth that we now have which distorts the so-called "free market" into a giant political football that is used to dictate both national and foreign policy.
Although the farm is still in the family--my brother inherited the farm--he choose to rent the farm out rather than work the land, since he knew he wouldn't be able work the land and make a living without government assistance.
He choose to NOT FARM THE GOVERNMENT.
As for the alleged "personal attacks" in this database. i see none.
But i do see a healthy dollop of TRUTH which is a must needed medicine that is being used by people in large quantities.
Thanks for the Database. It is much appreciated.
Greg Bacon
ava, Mo
Posted by: Greg Bacon | June 14, 2007 6:18 AM
Greg,
You had better tell your brother to sell that land!! A farmer is getting subsidy payments off that land!
Posted by: Adam Sleeth | June 18, 2007 2:32 PM
The "What is New" section says that commodity payments may not necessarily be paid through to the owners to whom pay-through benefits are attributed. They may be used to invest in the operation or for any other use. I would like to raise a question. It is my understanding that counter-cyclical payments and loan deficiency payments kick in when the market price is less than the target price or the loan rate. In these situations, gross revenues may not cover costs or cover costs including wages or family farm income. This is(theoretically) the point of the programs: to provide a safety net when prices are below the cost of production. Thus an unknown percentage of the counter-cyclical and LDP payments may go to cover costs rather than being distributed to the eligible beneficiaries. I would think this especially likely in heavily capitalized farm operations. So my question: how do we know how much of the safety net payments actually went for its intended purpose and how much is simply a boondogle?
A second question concerns the fact that figures are three-year aggregates. I would like to know how much they vary from year to year.
If the safety-net payments are made almost every year, they indicate a chronic problem, not the need for a safety net.
JUDITH: As we note on the site, no one knows how beneficiaries use their payments. And with some exceptions we don't know the details about the financial status of beneficiaries. The subsidies go to the participating individuals or businesses. In most cases the payments are quite modest. We know from aggregate USDA survey data that the majority of farms that receive subsidies depend on off-farm sources for most of their income, and that the income and wealth of the average farm household exceeds the national average. We know that the largest farms, which produce most of the subsidized commodity and get most of the subsidy payments, tend to have incomes and wealth that greatly exceed the national average.
We do break out most of the figures year by year--right underneath the 2003-2005 data, for instance, are data for the individual years. They vary quite a bit, particularly for corn and to a lesser extent for rice and cotton--for those two crops the subsidy system is still paying out significant benefits because market prices are not as high relative to congressionally set prices that trigger certain payments as is the case for corn, soybeans and wheat.
Posted by: Judith Scoville | June 26, 2007 12:34 PM
It's so nice that Mr. Seeth provides income-paycheck, food , Christmas to a needy family, yet wants the bells and whistles and gratefulness of society for providing those things to the disadvantaged.Did he withhold taxes from those wages? If not, he's raping the government doubly.Yes, please list the families you provide income to.
Posted by: Holly | July 30, 2007 2:14 PM
Holly, of course I withheld taxes from my employees paycheck. Anything else is a gift. So why do you think I'm doing something illegal on my farm? My farm is a professional legitimate business. How many tax dollars does Wal-mart get each year? How many American jobs are lost to China due to Wal-mart? How rich is the Walton family? By the way Holly, I bet you drive a gas guzzling SUV don't you. Farmers are a small group of people that provide a large amount of jobs, commerce and trade. Let's look at the big picture, like the big corporations that rape all of us many times over. Holly, why should I provide you with names of my employees? Who do you think you are?
Posted by: Adam Sleeth | August 19, 2007 3:01 PM
Mr. Seeth,
You are given a six figure government check.(Thank you, FSD) Nothing you earned.Too bad you do not provide a salary that will lift your employees out of poverty, instead of having to count on your handouts. Best regards to you.
Posted by: Holly | August 27, 2007 9:08 AM
Why do you list the subsidies a farmer "gets" more than once? It is obvious to me that you are listing subsidies paid to family farm [C] corporations, then listing the dollars AGAIN on each of the shareholders!! That money DOESN'T flow through to the shareholders!!
Holly, why don't you go to work for Mr. Seeth? See just what happens to that 'six figure government check'. Trust me, he earned it. Or if he's a beef producer, buy a steer on the hoof at lean hamburger price to fill your freezer, you'd both probably be better off.
Posted by: Bob | October 3, 2007 10:17 PM
With millions of people dying from lung cancer, and the millions of money being spent on their health care, HOW IN THE WORLD CAN **ANYONE** JUSTIFY EVEN ONE CENT IN GOVERNMENT TOBACCO SUBSIDIES??? By supporting Tobacco Subsidies, we are murdering people every day.....
Posted by: J. J. Barron | October 21, 2007 11:28 AM
I'm not a farmer, but I am getting educated about farming. I believe the small farmer should get the "relief" check. I know a few who could use an extra income. I also, know that abuse exist in any business, but, not all businesses abuse their privileges.
I just read, in the July RD that I had not read when it came to me, the following: "Dear USDA Secretary Mike Johanns:
My friend Jerry, who lives up the hollow, just received a check from the government for not raising hogs. So I want to get into the 'not raising hoga' business. As I see it, the hardest part of this program will be keeping an accurate inventory of how many hogs I haven't raised.
Now, these hogs I will not raise will not eat approximately 100,000 bushels of corn. I understand you pay farmers for not raising corn.
In view of these circumstances, the government will consider me totally unemployed, so I plan to file for unemployment benefits and food stamps as well.
Gratefully yours,
Name withheld by request, via internet"
Could this actually happen?
signed: King Tutt
Posted by: King Tutt | November 28, 2007 3:01 PM
I am a nurse. I have seen the health problems linked to the consumption of beef, the consumption of tobacco, and know full well the riskd from the chemical fallout on our crop supply. I work and earn ever penny, no tax free ride. I consider my job just as backbreaking, just as thankless at times, just as important as farming. But no one assists me in making a living.Except the sick and dying. Keep it comin love.
Posted by: Holly | December 15, 2007 10:59 PM
This is a great public service. Thanks for your work on it!
Posted by: Jack | February 25, 2008 11:05 PM