Reports & Consumer Guides
The Cash Croppers: Farm Subsidies 1985-1994: Pennsylvania
The Cash Croppers: Pennsylvania
Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $472 million to 32,910 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Pennsylvania. But 29.8 percent of those payments -- $141 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 658 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $24,736 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Pennsylvania got $3,710 per year.
In addition to receiving more subsidies per year of participation, the top two percent of recipients also enrolled in the subsidy programs more frequently. While the average Pennsylvania recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 3.8 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 8.6 years out of ten.
The combination of higher subsidy payments per year of participation, and the higher rate of participation, earned the top two percent of subsidy recipients in Pennsylvania an average of $213,566 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Pennsylvania received 14.8 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Pennsylvania recipient during the last decade.
Congress should take direct action in 1995 to eliminate such massive taxpayer subsidies to the relative handful of "cash croppers"-- the top 2 percent of America's heavily subsidized farm operators who have drawn huge Federal farm payments over the past decade.
In 1995, overall farm spending should be phased downward. Farm payments should be redirected to mid-size and smaller farmers. And instead of paying billions of dollars to a few thousand corporations, joint ventures and big-time farmers, Congress should invest in health care, education and environmental needs in rural Pennsylvania and rural America generally.
Unfortunately, as the 1995 debate over Federal farm subsidies draws to an end it seems almost certain that Congress will guarantee the status quo, perpetuating extremely high payments to a relative few subsidy recipients in Pennsylvania and in the nation as a whole. For example, the "Freedom to Farm Act," proposed by Rep. Pat Roberts of Kansas, will lock in big bucks subsidies for the largest recipients--the very corporations, joint ventures and industrial-scale operations that have made constant and maximum use of farm subsidy programs over the past decade. At the same time, the Freedom to Farm Act will lock out assistance in Pennsylvania to new farmers and farmers who have relied on subsidy payments less often.
Congress is moving aggressively to slash assistance to poor people, education, and environmental protection. But the Federal farm "cash croppers" in Pennsylvania and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.