Crop Insurance: “Something’s Gotta Give”

In a recently posted blog titled Something’s Gotta Give, Marcia Zarley Taylor proves once again that she is one of the most cogent observers of crop insurance. Taylor is executive editor of the agriculture website DTN, and her post warns farmers that the once-sleepy crop insurance program is taking center stage as Congress starts over on the farm bill. She quickly explains why.

Last year’s drought is pushing crop insurance claims toward a record $15 billion – most of which will be shouldered by taxpayers. Over the years, the cost of crop insurance has steadily grown from $2.9 billion in fiscal year 2003 to $13.1 billion in FY 2012, according to USDA’s Risk Management Agency. That exploding price tag is drawing lots of attention in a year when cutting government spending is at the top of Congress’ agenda.

Taxpayers pick up so much of a farmer’s crop insurance premium that, Taylor writes, “U.S. farmers could be claiming $3.85 for every dollar they paid to insure their 2012 crops.” And this can’t just be dismissed as a result of the drought. Taylor cites estimates by Kansas State economist Art Barnaby that from 1988 to 2011 farmers got back $1.89 for every dollar of their premium payments. Most taxpayers can only dream of getting that kind of return from their auto or homeowners insurance; it doesn’t happen.

Finally, Taylor correctly points out that one reason for the record-breaking claims is USDA’s highly subsidized and very popular Revenue Protection program. This type of insurance policy is so appealing because it’s currently paying out at the drought-inflated crop price, not at the much lower price the crop was insured for last spring. The 2012 guaranteed corn price “jumped from $5.68 per bushel at planting to $7.50 per bushel at harvest,” Taylor notes. Thanks to taxpayers, many farmers who lost their crop are likely to make more money from insurance than they would have earned if the drought hadn’t struck – an outcome she pointed out in her earlier, and aptly titled, “Extreme Insurance” post.

Something’s Gotta Give should be required reading as round three of the farm bill reauthorization debate starts up this year. Taylor predicts changes to crop insurance will be on the table, such as reducing the share of premiums paid by taxpayers, increasing the deductibles on subsidized policies and “further reducing the margins going to agents and insurers” who sell, service and profit from the government program.

I sincerely hope she is once again on the mark. Common-sense reform of crop insurance could create a fiscally responsible and sustainable safety net for farmers while upping much needed investments in conservation, nutrition and healthy food – all while cutting the deficit. That would be a farm bill that just might make it through Congress this time.

  • Anonymous

    If we want fewer and larger farms we need to double down on government crony capitalistic schemes that target greater benefits to larger farmers. Obviously rather than annual multimillion dollar benefits per farmer we need annual multibillion dollar benefits to the select few. On the other hand if we want more farmers working the land we need to dehorn,castrate, and slaughter government program schemes that target greater income and investment benefits to a select few. Perhaps we should be running in the direction of our founding fathers that designed a government that provided for very limited interference in citizens’ lifes and their businesses.

  • Anonymous

    A vivid example of the lethal impact on smaller farmers of congress targeting the largest farmers with multimillion dollar investment/profit guarantees is the debacle occuring now in sw Michigan. Bankers eager to cash in on congress’s open ended crop insurance guarantees engaged in petal to the metal lending with a 40,000 acre plus farmer named Mike Stamp. In order to grow his operation to this size a large number of smalller farmers were outbid by Mr. Stamp for rental land and were forced to downsize their farming operations. This past year Mr. Stamp was one of three finalist for Top Producer’s Top Producer of the year award. Before the year ended Mr. Stamp had filled for bankruptcy. If congress was not engaged in this insane petal to the metal investment/profit guaranteeing business to the largest farmers, smaller farmers would have been most likely able to hang on to their operations. Internet search engines provide many details of the ongoing bankruptcy and the numerous small farms and farm input suppliers being hurt by this action by congress providing multimillion dollar benefits to the large farmers such as Mr.Stamp. Lenders would not be engaged in such extremely reckless lending practices if not for the .massive investment/profit guarantees by congress to one individual.

  • Anonymous

    Another narrative of how congress is destroying smaller farms with nearly unlimited investment/profit guarantees for some of the largest operations is documented with the following link. http://www.agweb.com/farmjournal/article/high-profile_crash_of_a_titan/

  • Anonymous

    I don’t agree with the comment about farmers making more money from insurance than a farmer would if he or she had a good year farming. If that is the case he or she shouldn’t be farming. As a young farmer I know we must have some kind of insurance. It is not every year that we have had to use it, but the last couple of drought years we have had to use it and it is the only thing that keeps the bank from taking everything. I know at the end of the year if you have to use your insurance you just survive and thats it. In fact I know some banks require you to have crop insurance. But who could blame them when it is costing 300 top 500 dollars a acre to put in corn. That is not counting land rent or machinery cost. It just takes alot of money to put crops in every year. I know back in the 70′s and 80′s crop insurance was not really considered because of expense. But back then a combine didn’t cost 400000 or anhydrous wasn’t 800+ a ton either. Things have changed and I’m not saying for the best. But one thing has been the same we all still need food to live on..