This is either what’s wrong with American agriculture, or just the American way: Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., is one of the half dozen senators who’ve received farm subsidies in recent years. His haul has been comparatively modest, $50,000 in sorghum, wheat and conservation subsidies related to his Linn County farm. Brownback’s net worth has been estimated at $2.5 million to $10 million.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- LonnythePlumber on Health care reform would save state money
- aldenrw on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Too many exemptions
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Let immigrants run
- Politico on Too many exemptions
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
65 Comments
Republicans, always looking for a handout. I guess that explains the picture.
I wonder how politicians we have that are millionaires?
The Republicans never miss a chance to give to the rich. Whether it is tax cuts, farm subsidies or cheap home insurance for their Boca Raton mansions, they can always count on the Republicans. Of course there is no money for children’s health care this year.
so he received subsidies…obviously he fulfilled the requirements to get them.
It would be interesting to see you list the other senators who received them and how much they are worth…
Brownback panders only to the special interests. He has no sense of what the Kansas voter would like for him to do. OR……….. He doesn’t care what the voters think.
“It would be interesting to see you list the other senators who received them and how much they are worth…
Posted by: swallow my nickel | November 20, 2007 at 05:44 AM “follow the link in the post. 4 republicans and 2 democrats.
That is pennies compared to the Kansas legislators that receive farm welfare. It pays for them to be in the legislature.
Where is your report on that one?
Say it ain’t so Sam. Well, I guess it’s true. Another great disappointment from Sam. Think, this clown used farm welfare money to run for president.
Ah, the old class envy angle. Gets ‘em going every time. Break it down. MILLIONAIRE (got it unfairly somehow) SENATOR (makes the rules), GETTING FARM SUBSIDIES (if he has a million dollars, he’s not entitled to subsidies!) That about right??
If he hadn’t qualified for them and still got them, that might be a story. Otherwise, just a filler for the Dems to have their own whine tour this morning.
And you think republicans are the only ones who receive handouts from you and me (govt)? It’s just that the paper doesn’t publish the handouts the democats get.
Yes, outlander, except for the “class envy” bullsh*t, you got it exactly right.
The American taxpayer should not be funding people who are already rich so they can get richer.
Hey, Mary,
How many Democratic Senators do we have from Kansas?
Zero.
Thanking you in advance for not continuing to be an idiot . . .
Remember, Brownback’s roots don’t go too deep when it goes to the middle class
Geez, more of this divisive Rep/Dem talk. I tell ya, this Kansas School System. If it were a Democratic senator in Brownstains place it would have been the same subsidy given. Get over the left/right paradigm, pretty please. None of these jack asses work for us. But at least Brownstain’s a good “Christian”.
I love Rhonda’s throwaway line–”His haul has been comparatively modest, $50,000″
The median household income in the US is 48,000.
I guess over a year’s salary is “modest” if you’re a RepubliCON.
Over 12 years? What is that, a little over $4,000 a year? That is chump change to the subsidies that a lot of farmers get.
I am with outlander on this one (other than his jibe about ‘Dems’ and his presupposition that Brownback did qualify.)
Rhonda’s story is written in a manner that most readers will be led to assume Brownback should not have received the subsidies and/or somehow he did or is doing something wrong.
What are the guidelines to receive a farm subsidy? Did Brownback meet those requirements? Is there a net worth factor taken into consideration before subsidies are paid?Is there a point to this story?
How many Senators that voted for George Bush’s last round of tax cuts received benefit from the capital gains rate reduction? How does this compare with the US population overall?
So a senator was eligible for a federal handout program which has been in existence for decades, and has a “paper” networth for his farmland and property in the millions?
Democrats will not be happy until every single American is on the government tit, suckling for security and manna from their federal Gawd.
Price supports should end, all farm subsidies for all crops should end and all agricultural products should be produced and sold on an open market by the hard work and sweat of the farmers.
At the other end of the spectrum, all welfare payments (WIC, UnEIC, housing assist,etc..) should end.
The student loan programs should end, foreign aid, and military assistance should also end.
That my friends, would be the American Way.
Do you realize this information is an accumulation of funds SINCE 1995? Divide 50000k by 12 years and what do you get? less than 5k a year but more than 4k.. Do your math….
Did Brownback miss all those days in Congress because he was so busy working on his farm? If he’s against government waste and welfare then he should have turned the money down. Another typical hypocritical conservative.
It was just 2 weeks ago when the y’all complained that Bush vetoed a Farm Bill which failed to place a $250,000 per Farmer Cap on farm subsidies.
Sen Grassley has been supporting subsidy limits for years and all y’all Libs are opposed to limiting welfare/socialism, even if it is for the rich!
Y’all forget about the outrageous Cotton Subsidies in that Farm Bill that Bush vetoed?
You Libs complain about Welfare for the Rich all the time.
Why don’t you write your Democrat Comrades who control Congress to allow for Caps on Farm subsidies to be cut down to $250,000?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Too many members of the Senate Agriculture Committee oppose tighter limits on U.S. farm subsidies to include stringent reforms in an overhaul of the farm program, the panel’s chairman said on Thursday.
Because of the need for wide support for the farm bill, “I can’t say that I will be fully satisfied with what is in the bill on payment limitations,” said chairman Tom Harkin, Iowa Democrat, in a statement.
One committee member, Republican Charles Grassley of Iowa, has proposed a “hard” cap of $250,000 a year per farmer and requiring at least 1,000 hours of labor or management a year to qualify for payments.
The subsidy limit now is $360,000 but can be evaded a number of ways.”Senator Grassley and I see eye-to-eye on wanting stronger payment limitations, but a number of members of the Senate Agriculture Committee strongly disagree with us,” said Harkin. “It’s clear we need bipartisan cooperation to report a new farm bill from the Committee and get it enacted still this year.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1843405020071019
Democrat Senator Harry Reid is blocking the Amendment to the farm bill that would allow a cap of $250,000 per farmer, instead of the current $360,000 per farmer.
The Eagle got this story right, although they could have done a little better job reporting the reasons WHY Congress fails to cut this spending.
I’d like to see some details on which Congressmen are pushing for more Pork, and which ones are pushing for less Pork.
http://www.kansas.com/611/story/224416.html
Congress needs to cap farm subsidies
Why should you care about the 2007 farm bill? Because the massive, complicated bill now being debated by Congress will set federal agriculture policy — and billions in spending — for the next five years.
Democrats favor farm subsidies for struggling farmers. Brownback is a multi-millionaire who owns a farm which he doesn’t work. There is a difference.
72% of farm subsidies go to 10% of the farmers. Why doesn’t the Dem Congress stop this?
Iowa senator seeks $250,000 farm subsidy cap
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Senate should set an annual $250,000 limit per farmer on crop subsidies, said Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley on Tuesday.
Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, told reporters he would co-sponsor an amendment later this week to “put a hard cap on farm payments.” The amendment would be offered during debate on the Senate’s non-binding budget blueprint.
At present, the limit is $360,000 but can be evaded by use of so-called commodity certificates. Earlier this year, the Bush administration proposed stricter eligibility rules and a requirement for all payments be attributed to a person.
Grassley said his proposal would save $497 million over five years. The money would be split among research, land stewardship and nutrition programs.
North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan will co-sponsor the amendment, said Grassley, a Republican who has advocated the change before without success.
Some 72 percent of farm payments go to 10 percent of farmers. “Those are obviously the biggest,” said Grassley, who says the farm program should focus on medium and smaller households.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2038398920070320
Gee Max, I think you have effectively killed this thread.
How can the libs whine about this now?
Oh the libs always find a way.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!
Democrats favor farm subsidies for struggling farmers. Brownback is a multi-millionaire who owns a farm which he doesn’t work. There is a difference.
Posted by: Doug | November 20, 2007 at 10:21 AM
Besides Sen Tom Harkin, tell me Doug, which Dems are supporting a Cap on farm subsidies?
Go ahead, list all the Dems right here, you know, the Dems that are supporting a reduction in the $266 Billion farm bill. You know, the Dems who are wanting to put a maximum limit on farm subsidies of $250,000:
Doug’s List of Dems Who Want to Reduce Subsidies for the Rich:
….
Republicans, always looking for a handout. I guess that explains the picture.Posted by: Doug | November 20, 2007 at 02:38 AM
Did you bother to read the linked article Rhonda Holman provided Doug? Lotsa Dems on this list:
http://cjonline.com/stories/111707/bus_218377672.shtml
• Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont. One of the newest senators, Tester also is the top recipient of subsidies, collected largely before he was elected last November.
He and his wife, Sharla, have farmed land in Big Sandy Springs that has been in his family for nearly 100 years. The couple has received about $304,000 in federal farm aid since 1995.
The subsidies were for oats, wheat, barley, dry peas and disasters.
• Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa. A member of the Senate’s Agriculture Committee, Grassley has received about $283,000 in government subsidies for his family farm in Butler County between 1995 and 2005.
Most were corn, soybean and disaster-assistance subsidies. Grassley’s son, Robin, who runs the farm day-to-day, received nearly $654,000 during the same time.
• Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. Since 1995, Brownback received about $50,000 in sorghum, wheat and conservation subsidies for his farm in Linn County.
Brownback’s father and brother have received a total of $605,000 over the same time.
• Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore. With his wife, Sharon, Smith has collected about $47,000 in wheat subsidies since 1995 for their Smith Frozen Foods operation in Umatilla County.
• Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind. The No. 2 Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, Lugar and his wife, Charlene, received about $18,000 in corn, soybean and wheat subsidies for his share of Lugar Stock Farm in Marion County since 1995.
• Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark. Listed on the USDA database using her maiden name, Blanche Lambert, the senator collected about $11,000 in rice, wheat, sorghum, corn and wetlands subsidies for her portion of a Phillips County farm since 1995.
She is also a member of the Senate agriculture panel.
• Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. Another top Democrat on that committee, Baucus doesn’t appear on the USDA database as having personally received subsidies. But close family members have collected more than $230,000 since 1995, according to the records.
Damn Max!
I think you can cease fire on the firing line. There isn’t an opponent left standing.
Both barrels blazin’!!!!
So Max, your in favor of giving handouts to rich farmers?
I don’t want to kill this with facts, but…..
Does anyone know what percentage of the federal budget is spent on farm subsidies?
The Total 2007 budget for the entire department of agriculture was less than 0.9% of the US Budget.
Good job Max! You shut down the arguments before they started. All you will hear now is that only rich farmers get subsidies and they are almost all republicans. You know there are no rich democrats.
Tom! Heck no!
I’m in favor of eliminating all farm subsidies.
But since that isn’t going to happen, at least support Grassley and Harkin in their efforts to lower the subsidy limit per Farmer to $250,000!
I’d say lower it to $50,000, but the Majority Democrats can’t even get on board to support a $250,000 cap! And there’s also a requirement that the farmer work 1,000 or more hours on the farm to qualify. That’s 20 hours/week.
(Current Cap is $360,000)
I don’t want to kill this with facts, but…..
Does anyone know what percentage of the federal budget is spent on farm subsidies?
The Total 2007 budget for the entire department of agriculture was less than 0.9% of the US Budget.Posted by: brian | November 20, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Brian, can you read? $266 BILLION FARM BILL!
That’s peanuts to you Libs who don’t pay any taxes anyway.
An interesting history of the farm subsidy movement:
“American farm subsidies have evolved over the last 80-plus years from an emergency stopgap into an apparently inviolable institution that, despite efforts to scale back, is bigger than ever. The first American agricultural assistance programs started in the 1920s to address ramped-up growing patterns that farmers had developed in support of the World War I effort. When the war ended, farmers continued to grow crops at a record pace. The result was a glut of produce followed soon by plummeting prices, which the Agricultural Credits Act of 1923 was unable to stop.
Since then, the U.S. government has employed a chain of programs that at times have attempted to manage what and how much American farmers produce. As early as 1929 the government bought cotton and grains on the open market when production outstripped demand in an attempt to stabilize prices. That just encouraged farmers to grow more. Later techniques included fixing quotas for certain farm products, removing surplus products from the marketplace, and paying farmers not to plant crops that were flooding the market.
According to Richard Wiles, a senior vice president for the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, these programs have become entrenched in America’s heartland. Although farm subsidies began to taper off in the early 1960s, during the first term of the Nixon administration an unfortunate convergence of a poor growing year and an agreement to sell millions of bushels of grain to the Soviet Union caused shortages and a spike in prices. In response, the government developed a suite of programs meant to increase production. The result, Wiles says, was a surplus of basic commodities–primarily wheat, corn, soybeans, and cotton–and falling prices for these products on the open market. In 1996 an attempt was made to eliminate subsidies altogether. This so-called Freedom to Farm Act eliminated crop subsidies, but instead gave farmers fixed amounts of money based on what they had grown in earlier years.
According to Wiles, however, the act was fatally flawed. “It grandfathered everybody who received subsidies at that time so that they could get subsidies forever, whether or not they grow anything. It turned the commodity payments into commodities themselves that could be passed around, sold, and traded.”
By 2000 these fixed payments had reached $22 billion, about three times the pre-reform level of 1996, according to the 2002 report Landowners’ Riches: The Distribution of Agricultural Subsidies by Ohio State University agricultural economist Barry K. Goodwin and colleagues. The 2002 Farm Bill abandoned this attempt to eliminate subsidies and reduce farm payments. Instead, says Landowners’ Riches, it is scheduled to distribute about $190 billion by 2012, an increase of about $72 billion when compared to the programs it replaced. Supporters call this provision a vital safety net for America’s most vulnerable workers–small family farmers with few resources. Some critics, on the other hand, call it welfare that benefits huge agricultural corporations–giant farms, grain brokers, food processors, fast-food chains, and prepackaged food companies–more than family farms.”
It seems Nixon was working to reduce it. As you can see that was the only time this was tried until Bush’s latest attempt.
Our 20% approval rate congress might be able to work in some time to fix this.
Oh, and Brian, since you don’t think the farm bill is that much money, as compared to the total budget, then no one will lose much if we just cut the whole farm bill out of the budget.
If it’s so small, then just take it out of the budget completely!
Thanks ksgrm. I couldn’t believe the WE had just criticized farm subsidies on 11/11, and the WE failed to report WHY subsidies continued.
Then the WE criticized Bush for his veto of the farm bill.
And now today, the WE is blaming a Republican for continuing the farm subsidies and taking advantage of the program himself, as if NO Democrats were supporting the farm bill.
If the WE wants to repost stories, (without all the facts) then I guess they can reread some old blog posts too.
Nice history you posted above, ksgrm. Some think America has been Socialist since 1776. It only really started about 80 years ago, then expanded by FDR in the 30’s and 40’s.
Doug’s List of Dems Who Want to Reduce Subsidies for the Rich:
….
Say Eagle Beak, if anyone is still left standing to fight for the Dems continued Farm Subsidies for the Rich, just claw their eyes out, would ya?
In case anyone actually cares about reality, below is a list of co-sponsors of the legislation introduced by Senators Dorgan (Dem.) and Grassley (Rep.) that would cap eligibility for subsidies to those with an adjusted gross income of a paltry $250,000. And by the way, president Bush signed into law the current subsidy system.
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT]Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI]Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] -
Sen Hagel, Chuck [NE] -
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] -
Sen Johnson, Tim [SD] -
Sen Klobuchar, Amy [MN] -
Sen McCain, John [AZ] -
Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] -
Sen Nelson, E. Benjamin [NE]Sen Obama, Barack [IL] -
Sen Tester, Jon [MT] -
Max the socialist hater just can’t bring himself to criticize Brownback.
Get to work, slacker.
I fully expected to see something like ‘you consider 50,000 alot of money”, or “you think 2 to 10 mil. is rich?” Repubs. are slipping. If we don’t defend the millionaires, they’re going to come after us next, and who will defend us?
So if the Majority Democrat Congress is AGAINST Farm Subsidies for the Rich, why don’t they cut the Farm Bill as requested by President Bush?
Why, oh Why, oh tell me Why!
“If we don’t defend the millionaires, they’re going to come after us next, and who will defend us?
Posted by: The Phantom | November 20, 2007 at 12:09 ”
PHantom, what are you talking about? We are the millionaires
End all subsidies. Free/capitalist market. No socialism. This is a federalist nation after all isn’t it?
For a searchable database of farm subsidy payment receivers, see
http://farm.ewg.org/farm/index.php?key=nosign
By the way, the farm subsidies, including the subsidy to not grow anything, has had several rationales applied, including the need tof cheap food, the need for environmentally farm acreage, the need to keep small communities alive, etc etc etc. If you think that that the focus has been on “millionair farmer” good luck with that. Oh by the way, the USDA budget also includes the food stamp program for the poor, rural and community development funds, and on and on.
See
http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2007/FY07budsum.pdf
Bottom Line:
It’s obscene for any so-called “conservative” to rationalize giving taxpayers’ money to wealthy farmers and turn around and gripe about the poorest of the poor and the weakest of the weak getting assistance to pay rent, buy food, and see a doctor.
Why didn’t the republicans cut welfare to rich farmers when they were in charge? Brownback could give the check back too.
“Bottom Line:
It’s obscene for any so-called “conservative” to rationalize giving taxpayers’ money ”
That is all you had to say…
You earn it. You keep it.
KISSKeepItSimple,
Stupid!
Why didn’t the republicans cut welfare to rich farmers when they were in charge? Brownback could give the check back too.
Posted by: Tom Paine | November 20, 2007 at 01:04 PM
Democrat’s Defense: The Republicans Are No Better Then Us!
Max, Im not a democrat, and the question stands if your so pissed that the democrats haven’t done anything to change subsidies what did the republicans do change anything? There’s not much difference in Dems and Repubs to me most are assholes.
One of Wichita’s richest families got that way by buying up worthless land back in the 1950’s, and getting paid to not plant it under the federal land bank programs. They now own about half of Wichita.
Y’know, it’s probably not a matter of what the Republics did or did not do (although they claimed they deserved election because they’d make government smaller… and didn’t, once they were in power). And it’s not entirely a matter of what the Democrats said they would do, even when faced with presidential vetos and Republics who could stop the will of the Congress.
There’s probably a basic benefit for American farmers to get some assurance that the annual risk they take with planting crops in the face of potential freezes, hail, market fluctuations…
But some people have played the system, so an ordinary wage-slave’s tax money is paying Sam Brownback not to grow sorghum and not paying any of the rest of us for not growing nothing.
Back in 1996, Pat Roberts won re-election because he advocated the “Freedom to Farm” bill. It had all sorts of front-loaded subsidies for the first three or four years, with the plan to reduce subsidies to the point that farmers would be “free to farm” what ever crops and livestock for free-market profits or loss.
Of course, after the three or four years of “Freedom to Farm” windfalls to farmers, Pat Roberts went to work on developing new legislation that assured his campaign contributors would continue to get taxpayers’ money.
The classic bait and switch.
Your tax dollars are paying Sam Brownback *not* to raise wheat and your tax dollars are subsidizing imported tainted Chinese wheat to outfits that make pet food — and human food — and corporate profits.
Just how is this enterprise in any way considered “conservative?”
You conservatives are funny. The current system of subsidies was created in 1996 when Republicans were in charge. The Republicans retooled the law so subsidies could be paid out (1.3 billion) to people who don’t farm so rich Republicans who own a lot of land will get money.
So now when the bill comes up for renewal the Democrats are in charge and plan on changing it. For some reason the conservatives here are whining that the Democrats didn’t change it when they were in the minority. Add to the ignorance you guys compare Jon Tester (an actual farmer) to Brownback, a career politician.
It’s like you guys don’t know what you are talking about but when is that new?
There should be a law about the farm being the principal residence (with a mimimum of say 9 mo. occupation every year) to get subsidies. That would cut out alot of this bs.
So, now with Democrats in charge of Congress, what are THEY doing about the farm subsidies?
Trying to increase them, and refusing to put a $250,000 limit on them.
“Max” –
Assuming you live in Kansas, you have two Republic Party Senators and half the congressional delegation to lobby for elimination of farm subsidies.
Have you done so?
What needs to be done is decouple the benefits for the poor, from the benefits for the rich farmers. They are separate issues and should not be covered by the same bill.
what needs to be done is eliminate farm subsidies. Period. Let those who will go broke, go broke. Let those who will survive, survive. If that means corporations own all the land, then so be it. End subsidies now.
“”"Democrats favor farm subsidies for struggling farmers. Brownback is a multi-millionaire who owns a farm which he doesn’t work. There is a difference.”"”"
Very little of that money actually goes to “farmers”. It goes to weathly land bankers that could not farm if their lives depended on it. A talk show host said that the majority of checks for farm payments are mailed to New York City! I have been there several times and never seen a wheat or corn field or a John Deere going down 5th Ave!
NYC is where all the CEO’s of all the BIG ag. Companies live they get most of the Farm welfare not the family farmer it was intended for.
“Brian, can you read? $266 BILLION FARM BILL!
That’s peanuts to you Libs who don’t pay any taxes anyway.
Posted by: Max | November 20, 2007 at 11:46 AM ”
And YOU must have missed the part about it being a 5 year bill.
Wow Brian, just $53.2 Billion per year then.
Should be no big deal to cut that from the budget then.