CAP en Español
Small CAP Banner

Budget Bullets: Agricultural Subsidies

Billions of Dollars in Agricultural Subsidies Would Be Better Spent on Deficit Reduction

SOURCE: AP/Nati Harnik

In this October 6, 2010 file photo, corn is harvested near Union, Nebraska.

    PRINT:
  • print icon
  • SHARE:
  • Facebook icon
  • Twitter icon
  • Share on Google+
  • Email icon

The federal government each year pays owners of certain croplands $4.9 billion in “direct payment” subsidies, regardless of whether the recipients plant anything on their land. Designed to provide farmers with “income stability,” these payments today go to high-income owners of select croplands who are already enjoying high commodity prices and profits. These ineffective government subsidies should be phased out and used to reduce the U.S. deficit.

Agricultural subsidies are government giveaways that benefit wealthier people and larger farms

  • Nearly two-thirds of direct payments go to the largest 12 percent of farms.
  • Recipients of this government largesse were “more than twice as likely to have higher incomes as other tax filers,” according to the General Accountability Office.
  • Nearly two dozen current members of Congress took home a combined $6 million in these subsidies in recent years, according to an independent analysis.

Direct payments are unfair and make no economic sense

  • The payments are made every year whether the recipient farms or not.
  • Payments continue to increase the deficit even though they aren’t needed—commodity prices are high and farm profits grew by 27 percent in 2010.
  • Most farmers don’t get these special-interest subsidies, which favor cotton and rice growers over fruit and vegetable farmers—even though the latter contribute more than 50 percent of the total farm “gate value” in the United States.

We should phase out these subsidies and use the savings to reduce the deficit

  • Direct payments should be gradually phased out, starting with limits that would restrict eligibility to people earning less than $250,000 in farm income.
  • Congress should redirect more than $4.2 billion in savings to deficit reduction, and target the remaining $650 million to farm-based clean energy projects, rural home modernizations, biofuel crop cultivation, and agricultural exports.
  • These recommendations would allow Congress to simultaneously reduce the deficit and invest in our economic competitiveness, affirming our historical commitment to farmers and rural communities.

Gadi Dechter is Associate Director of Government Reform at the Center for American Progress.

To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:

Print: Katie Peters (economy, education, poverty, Half in Ten Education Fund)
202.741.6285 or kpeters@americanprogress.org

Print: Anne Shoup (foreign policy and national security, energy, LGBT issues, health care, gun-violence prevention)
202.481.7146 or ashoup@americanprogress.org

Print: Crystal Patterson (immigration)
202.478.6350 or cpatterson@americanprogress.org

Print: Madeline Meth (women's issues, Legal Progress, higher education)
202.741.6277 or mmeth@americanprogress.org

Spanish-language and ethnic media: Tanya Arditi
202.741.6258 or tarditi@americanprogress.org

TV: Lindsay Hamilton
202.483.2675 or lhamilton@americanprogress.org

Radio: Chelsea Kiene
202.478.5328 or ckiene@americanprogress.org

 

This is part of a regular column: Budget Bullets

For more from the same column, click here