Archives
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010

December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009

December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008

December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007

December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006

December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005

December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004

Obama budget would cut direct payments to farmers

Billings Gazette
February 3, 2010
By Tom Lutey

Email this page

The budget released this week calls for a $10,000 cut in the per person direct payment available to farmers with large acreages. Eligibility rules would also be tightened. On farms where more than one person qualifies for aid, the loss could be significant.

“I guess what the cut does, for one, it takes money out of rural America, just like that,” said Keven Bradley, Montana Grain Growers Association president.

Bradley, who farms near Cut Bank, said that if the cut passes muster with Congress, it will hurt the businesses downtown where he and other farmers shop. Conservative rural America hasn’t been quiet about its preference to reign in government spending. Still, the cut won’t be popular.

“I agree that’s a tough call. It’s a very tough call the president is going to have to make, but it seems like rural America is in a constant recession. We weren’t going great guns when the rest of the country was,” Bradley said. “There weren’t any new car lots opening here.”

Created in 1996, direct payments are annual payments unrelated to current production or market prices. They have assured farmers a reliable source of revenue, which comes in handy when applying for farm loans.

Farmers are not obligated to grow crops to receive direct payments and can plant any crop, except fruits and vegetables, without losing benefits. The payments are a common income source for Montana farmers growing, wheat, barley or oilseeds.

John Youngberg, of the Montana Farm Bureau Federation, said the proposed cut would make it difficult for farmers to assure banks that operating loans could be paid off.

In 2006, Montana farmers collected $98.4 million in direct payments, according to the Environmental Working Group’s Farm Subsidy Database.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said direct farm payments were the wrong place to cut. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Baucus will get a closer look at the proposed cuts than most.

“I cannot stand by as the president moves to cut direct payments to farmers and ranchers. We’re only two years into the 2008 Farm Bill, and Montana producers have made long-term plans based on what they thought was a solid agreement with the government for the life of that bill,” Baucus said in a written statement.

Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., also responded Tuesday to Obama’s proposal.

“Cutting federal spending is essential to getting our fiscal house in order. With trillions of dollars being spent, every department needs more fiscal accountability. I will work to not only balance the budget, but ensure that it’s not done solely on the backs of Montana farmers,” Rehberg said in a statement.

In the budget proposal released Monday, Obama also proposed cutting off direct payments to farmers with annual farm income of more than $500,000. The current ceiling for payment is $750,000.

The president proposed a 67 percent increase in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP. If budgeted at the requested $1.2 billion, EQIP would provide technical, financial and educational assistance for farmers.

The proposed budget also asks for $418 million for rural broadband.

NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for research and educational purposes.