The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal Media. The opinions expressed below are the author's own.
AgWeb Editor Greg Vincent takes a big-picture look at agriculture and current events.
Saturday’s New York Times ran an article on Washington’s farm subsidy debate. A friend of mine, a transplanted Iowan turned New York City actor, texted me asking to put the debate in layman's terms. Here’s my attempt and what I told him:
What did I leave out? Do you agree with my assessment that most farmers would give up a subsidy in return for the government getting out of their business?
The crop payment goes to the tenant, not the landlord in Manhattan.
i like that comment. eliminate direct payments in return for a better ra policy.
statement of $746.48 gross profit per acre--is gross income per acre--not profit--this is misleading---get rid of the subsidy program --assist with risk management, ie: federal crop insurance--assist with conservation programs--to protect our land for future generations--subsides promote greed --and the mining,and misuse of our land, at the expence of conservation and preservation of natural resources. give assistance to the people that are directly farming, caring, conserving and trying to make a living from the land, not to the greedy scammers that are milking the program.