The Cash Croppers: Farm Subsidies 1985-1994

The Top Two Percent of America's Farm Subsidy Recipients, 1985-1994

Saturday, September 2, 1995

The Cash Croppers: Farm Subsidies 1985-1994

The Top Two Percent of America's Farm Subsidy Recipients, 1985-1994

Over the past 10 years, American taxpayers made payments totaling $108.9 billion through Federal farm subsidy programs. But just 2 percent of the programs' recipients - only about 60,000 corporations, partnerships and individual farmers - received an astronomical 26.8 percent of the subsidies, $29.2 billion in all.

The top 2 percent of America's farm subsidy recipients hauled in an average of $485,000 each over the past 10 years, more than 13 times as much as the average recipient. The top 60,000 recipients averaged more in Federal farm subsidies each year they participated ($52,169) than the typical American family earned in the average year from all sources over the past decade. And the top 2 percent of America's farm subsidy recipients could hardly have been more dependent on the farm programs: they participated on average in 9.3 out of 10 yearsÐÐnearly twice the frequency of the average farm subsidy participant.

EWG analysis of computer records of more than 112 million farm program payments, made through the U.S. Department of Agriculture between 1985 and 1994, found that hundreds of farm subsidy recipients pulled in more than $1 million each through USDA programs over the past decade. All of the top 50 individual farmer recipients of USDA subsidies received more than $1.5 million in farm, conservation, and disaster payments over the decade. Very large payments were especially common in the rice and cotton programs. The top 50 recipients of rice payments, most of which were corporations or general partnerships, all received more than $1.7 million over the 10 years. The top 50 recipients of upland cotton payments, mostly general partnerships, likewise received more than $1.8 million each over the decade. At the other end of the spectrum, the latest figures from the Census of Agriculture reveal that 70 percent of the nation's farms received no government subsidy payments.

Some top recipients received very large payments through the now defunct "dairy termination program," in which taxpayers bought entire herds of milk cows from dairy farmers during the late 1980s and early 1990's. The purchased cows were slaughtered for meat as a means of reducing milk supply and boosting milk prices. Other top recipients received very large payments through the Federal wool and mohair subsidy program, which is now being phased out over the next few years. But the vast majority of the large recipients received deficiency payments for major program crops - wheat, corn, cotton and rice. In many instances, top recipients received payments under many USDA programs, year after year.

Individual Recipients

Not all farmers are created equal when it comes to farm program payments. The top 2 percent of Federal farm subsidy recipients who received payments as individuals took in $20.38 billion government payments over the past decade, nearly a quarter of all payments to individuals. These big farmers averaged $413,347 apiece over the past 10 years, more than 12 times the amount paid to the average individual recipient. On an annual basis, subsidies to the top 2 percent among individual recipients came to more than $42,700 per year (versus $6,500 per year for the average recipient). The top individual recipients were also more dependent on the subsidies than the average recipient -- the top individuals received payments an average of 9.6 years out of 10, much longer than the average 5.2 years out of 10.

Corporations with Stockholders

Just 1,570 corporations with stockholders (the top 2 percent) hauled in more than $1.38 billion in Federal farm subsidies over the past decade, more than 14 percent of all corporate farm payments. Taxpayers provided these corporations with an average of $880,244 in Federal funds over that period-- 24 times as much as the average subsidy recipient. The biggest corporate subsidy recipients averaged more than $91,000 for each year of participation, about 12 times as much as the average subsidy recipient, and the top corporations participated much more often (9.6 years out of 10, compared to 4.9 years for the average recipient).

General Partnerships

This form of business organization was an especially lucrative one through which to collect farm subsidies over the past 10 years. Just 1,386 general partnershipsÐÐthe top 2 percent of that categoryÐÐhauled in more than $1.9 billion, averaging $1.4 million per partnership over the decade. These top general partnerships received an average of $173,073 per year of participationÐÐand they were in the programs an average of 8 out of 10 years.

Joint Ventures

Joint ventures did nearly as well as general partnerships in terms of Federal farm subsidy earnings. The top 2 percent of joint ventures--just 264 entities--pulled in a total of $313 million over 10 years, averaging nearly $1.2 million each. Their payments per year of participation topped $166,000, and they participated in 7.1 out of 10 years, a high degree of dependency on federal hand outs.

Joint ventures were especially well-rewarded in deficiency payments under the upland cotton program. Just 38 joint ventures earned $45.6 million, an average of $1,201,268 each, between 1985 and 1994. Seventeen joint ventures did nearly as well in the rice deficiency payment program, earning a total of $18 million over the decade, an average of just over one million dollars each.

How The States Compared

The "cash croppers" phenomenon -- big subsidy payments to a small number of recipients -- was found in every state. Payments to the top 2 percent of subsidy recipients ranged from a low of 16.8 percent of all payments in North Dakota, to a high of 51.8 percent of all payments in Arizona.

Some regions of the country showed a particularly high concentration of payments to the top 2 percent of recipients. For example, the top 2 percent of recipients in most southeastern states were paid more than one-third of all subsidies: Alabama (39.7 percent of all payments to the top 2 percent of recipients), Florida (35.3 percent), Mississippi (34.8 percent), North Carolina (40.5 percent), South Carolina (37.2 percent), Tennessee (39.7 percent), and Virginia (41.2 percent).

Foreword

Say, what ever happened to all that big, bold, post-election talk from the Republican Revolutionaries about ending Federal farm subsidy programs?

What became of all those wanna-be secretaries of agriculture in the Republican party who so irked House Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts ten months ago--William Kristol, Bill Bennett, Dick Armey and so many others in the GOP--who firmly insisted that the overhaul or outright termination of farm programs was the true litmus test of Republican resolve to get the government under control?

And what about that unprecedented coalition of tough-minded, hard-chargin', bottom line guys in the grain trade and ag input business. Weren't they going to sweep away every farm program rule that might fetter the free-market, full-tilt farming of every tillable acre in the land?

As the big debate over the future of farm policy draws to a close, the bold talk of reform among Republicans has faded to an embarrassed whisper about a "freedom to farm bill" that is nothing more than the status quo done up in revolutionary drag. And even that meager effort to address government intrusion in farm markets and taxpayers' pockets is too radical for the GOP's big, bulging farm belt.

The ranks of Republican reformers have thinned to a gutsy, principled few, notably Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Dick Lugar of Indiana and Rep. Dick Zimmer of New Jersey. On the whole, Republicans seem to have concluded that instead of cutting farm subsidies, it makes more sense to slash welfare, nutrition, education, job training and environmental programs.

Not that Democrats as a whole have presented a profile in courage on farm policy. House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, for example, convened a series of meetings this summer at which farm policy reformers in his own party were officially lambasted by the farm welfare crowd in the Democratic party, a group of conservatives who call themselves The Coalition. Mr. Gephardt evidently calculated that the defense of every inequity and outrage in farm policy, and the surrender of the greatest leverage he might have on party conservatives, was the best way to win back the House. We think it is, at best, a way to elect more Democrats who vote like Republicans.

President Clinton exhibited an equally bankrupt stance with his hippocratic oath to "do no harm" to farm subsidies, delivered during his "rural summit." The White House strategy is to sit back and let Republicans take the blame for farm subsidy cuts. We think this approach will reap for the President in 1996 roughly the same political pay-off from farmers that Tom Foley, Dan Glickman, Neal Smith and countless other rural Democrats received in 1994, in return for their decades spent delivering the farm subsidy goods back home.

Now, some insiders argue that the President's position is rooted not in political expediency but in a principled belief that farm subsidies are necessary and good for rural America. He should visit Arkansas. According to the most recent Census of Agriculture, 80 percent of the farms in Arkansas don't get any farm subsidies. Makes you wonder why and how American taxpayers managed to pump $3.9 billion-worth of farm payments into the state between 1985 and 1994. And here's more cause for wonderment: 29 percent of that Federal farm money ($1.1 billion) went to just 2 percent of the recipients in Arkansas--1,439 corporations, joint ventures and individual farm operators--who averaged more than $785,000 each in government payments over 10 years. The fifty top individual farmer recipients in the state all received more than $500,000 apiece over the decade.

Does anyone seriously believe that rural economic vitality can possibly be aided by this outrageous concentration of taxpayer largesse into the hands of a few large landowners, corporations and general partnerships? The Administration's "guidance" booklet on the 1995 Farm Bill diagnoses the situation aptly: "The rural economy has long been more non-farm than farm...Rural America needs a healthy agricultural sector but it also must have health clinics, affordable housing, sustainable agricultural related ventures, water and sewer systems, fire stations and town halls, and businesses and industries."

What's more, according to the Administration:

"Chronic problems in rural America persist, including lack of employment opportunities, poor housing, high poverty rates, high illiteracy and low levels of education, lack of development skills within local governments, a general lack of institutional and organizational infrastructure, and a lack of access to credit....Thirteen percent of rural Americans have incomes below the poverty line, which almost matches the poverty rate for central cities."(See Note 1.)

What makes these thoughtful observations so fathomlessly empty is that the President turned right around and handed over all the money--and all the political leverage--to commodity crop interests once again. Meanwhile public investment dries up, in rural Arkansas and rural everywhere, for better schools, job training, health care, clean water, and all manner of non-farm economic development initiatives. Farm consolidation continues at a steady pace, accelerated by farm subsidies that mainly help the big boys get even bigger. And far too many rural areas continue to be depopulated, with young people especially prone to moving on.

No self-respecting policy wonk could possibly conclude that the prevailing public interest in rural America in 1995 is well served by a farm subsidy system hatched during the New Deal. Farm subsidies have long since served the narrow, special interest of a few thousand big-time farmers and the corporations and general partnerships they have concocted to harvest the maximum amount of Federal farm bucks. Anyone who, like President Clinton, vows to "end welfare as we know it" should commit to no less an ambition for agriculture and rural policy.

But the prevailing ambition in the White House and on Capitol Hill is to craft a 1995 Farm Bill that guarantees agri-business as usual. That is very good news indeed for the top 2 percent of the nation's farm subsidy recipients. The cash crop they'll harvest from American taxpayers extends bountifully before them, as far as the eye can see.

Kenneth A. Cook
President

Note 1: 1995 Farm Bill: Guidance of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture. p. 20.

About the EWG Farm Subsidy Database

As with City Slickers and Fox in the Henhouse, the first two studies in the series, The Cash Croppers is based on original EWG analyses of more than 112 million computer records -- a record of every check written to every recipient, for every Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS, now known as the Consolidated Farm Service Agency, or CFSA) program, in every year since 1985. The records were obtained in two steps.

Beginning in 1992, EWG filed a series of information requests with USDA under the Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Among the initial requests, we asked for most of the manuals that USDA personnel utilize in implementing all major farm, disaster and conservation assistance programs. After reviewing the manuals, EWG identified and requested dozens of datasets in computerized form, mostly from ASCS, now known as CFSA. The department's computer center in Kansas City fulfilled initial requests by providing data from the Producer Payment Recording System (PPRS) on about forty, 9-track computer tapes, which contained records of payments according to the county from which the payment originated. More recently, data have been provided on high density 4 mm DAT storage tapes. In addition, EWG has obtained another 17 gigabytes of raw data that pertain to subsidy recipients, conservation payments by practice, and characteristics of program farms.

Once the raw data was received, EWG transferred the data files onto its Power Macintosh computer platform for further processing, compilation, quality control and analysis. The data presented in The Cash Croppers, for example, are generated from a customized, point-and-click database application developed by EWG's computer programmers that can access and analyze more than 40 gigabytes of data.

EWG requested and USDA developed an algorithm or "code" that scrambled the identifying numbers of recipients, so that payments and other information could be tracked and analyzed by recipient over all years and all programs. The recipient data were then compiled to obtain program-by-program totals for each individual, corporation or other entity receiving farm subsidies in any year from 1985 through 1994. Data were also aggregated to obtain total, per-program, per-year and per-recipient payments for the nation, as well as for each county, state, and congressional district in the country. The database used for The Cash Croppers includes $108.9 billion-worth of farm subsidy payments issued by USDA between January 1, 1985 and December 31, 1994.

Detailed Subsidy Information Is Now Available

In order to control publication costs, The Cash Croppers presents only the highlights from literally thousands of EWG farm subsidy analyses that are now available to the media on request. All of the these analyses are original, previously unpublished tabulations derived from USDA computer records described above. Most of EWG's analyses and tabulations for top farm subsidy recipients are available for the nation, and for all states, all counties, and all congressional districts.

Chapter 1.   All USDA Subsidies

This chapter provides the most expansive analysis of the extraordinary degree to which tens of billions of dollars of Federal farm subsidy payments have been concentrated in the hands of a small percentage of subsidy recipients over the past decade.

Tabulated in this chapter are $108.9 billion in direct payments made through all USDA subsidy programs administered by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) since 1985, including farm programs (crop deficiency payments, dairy termination, on-farm storage), conservation programs (primarily Conservation Reserve Program, but also the Agricultural Conservation Program), and disaster programs.

Recipient Category: All Recipients

Of the $108.9 billion in Federal farm subsidy payments made to more than 3 million recipients between 1985 and 1994, a total of $29.2 billion.

Chapter 2.  Total Deficiency Payments

Deficiency payments have formed the core of Federal farm subsidy programs over the past decade. Deficiency payments for upland cotton, feed grains (corn, barley, sorghum and oats), wheat and rice accounted for $71 billion (65 percent) of the $108.9 billion in total farm subsidy payments made between 1985 and 1994. As this chapter makes clear, like farm subsidies generally, the all-important deficiency payments are highly concentrated among a relative handful of subsidy recipients.

Recipient Category: All Recipients

Just 2 percent of all those who received deficiency payments over the past decade.

Chapter 3.  Upland Cotton Deficiency Payments

Recipient Category: All Recipients

Just over 202,000 recipients received $8.78 billion in upland cotton deficiency program payments between 1985 and 1994. But the top 2 percent of those recipients--just over 4,000--got a staggering 22.6 percent of the cotton deficiency payments ($1.99 billion). These top recipients averaged nearly a half million dollars ($491,861) each in cotton deficiency payments over the decade. The top cotton deficiency payment recipients got more from taxpayers in one year than the average cotton deficiency payment recipient got in 10. Upland cotton deficiency subsidies have become increasingly concentrated over time: the top 2 percent of recipients were paid just 12.8 percent of the total upland cotton deficiency subsidies in 1985, but were paid between 28.5 percent and 33.1 percent of total upland cotton deficiency payments from 1990 through 1994.

Recipient Category: Individuals

Nearly 150,000 individuals received upland cotton deficiency payments totaling more than $5.5 billion from 1985 through 1994. The top 2 percent of these individuals, however, received more than $1 billion of this total, or 18.4 percent of all subsidies over the 10 year period. These top individuals received an average of $341,715 in subsidy payments over 10 years, more than 9 times the amount paid to the average recipient of upland cotton deficiency subsidies. They also participated in the programs more often (9.8 years of 10, as compared with 5.8 years of 10 for the average recipient) and got more than 5 times as much per year of participation as the average recipient of upland cotton deficiency payments.

Recipient Category: Corporations With Stockholders

Nationwide, nearly 10,000 corporations were paid $783 million in upland cotton deficiency payments from 1985 through 1994. Of this total, almost $81 million was paid to the 192 corporations representing the top 2 percent of corporate upland cotton deficiency recipients. These top corporations participated in upland cotton subsidy programs nearly twice as often as the average corporation, and were paid an average of $421,093 over the last 10 years.

Recipient Category: General Partnerships

General partnerships accounted for $1.7 billion in upland cotton deficiency payments over the last decade. Just 216 of these partnerships received $288 million in upland cotton deficiency payments, or 16.5 percent of the total to general partnerships. The general partnerships among this top 2 percent averaged an astounding $1.3 million in upland cotton deficiency payments over 10 years, more than 8 times the amount paid to the average general partnership, and nearly 36 times the amount paid to the average individual recipient.

Recipient Category: Joint Ventures

Nationwide, 1,887 joint ventures received $191 million in upland cotton deficiency subsidies over the past 10 years. Just 38 of these joint ventures, representing the top 2 percent, received 23.9 percent of all upland cotton deficiency subsidies paid to joint ventures. These top 38 joint ventures averaged $1.2 million in upland cotton deficiency payments each, nearly 12 times the amount paid to the average joint venture.

Information About the Top 50 Recipients: Upland Cotton Payments

The top 50 recipients of upland cotton payments in the nation all were paid more than $1.8 million over 10 years. Only 7 states were represented among the top 50 recipients: California, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Arizona, Louisiana and Texas. The top 50 individuals for upland cotton payments all were paid more than $580,000 over 10 years. Forty-six of these top individuals collected subsidies in each of the last 10 years.

Chapter 4.  Rice

From 1985 through 1994, 62,748 recipients were paid nearly $5 billion in rice deficiency payments nationwide. The top 2 percent of these recipients--1,255 individuals, corporations, and other business entities--were paid more than 16 percent of all rice deficiency subsidies, totaling more than $825 million over 10 years. These top recipients of rice deficiency subsidies were paid an average of $658,016 over the decade, more than eight times the amount paid to the average rice deficiency recipient was paid over the same period. The top 2 percent of rice deficiency recipients also received subsidies one and a half times as often as the average individual recipient: 8.1 years out of 10, as opposed to 5.3 years of 10 for the average recipient. Rice deficiency payments appear to have become even more concentrated in recent years; payments to the top 2 percent of recipients equaled just 6.7 percent of total rice deficiency subsidies in 1985, but have ranged from 21.3 percent to 22.6 percent of total rice deficiency subsidies since 1990.

Recipient Category: Individuals

Nationwide, just under 45,000 individuals received a total of nearly $3 billion in rice deficiency payments from 1985 through 1994. The top 2 percent of these recipients, or 895 individuals, received 13 percent of these payments, totaling $389 million. Each of these top individuals received, on average, $434,840 in rice deficiency payments over the ten years examined, which was 6.5 times more than the payment to the average individual over the same period. Almost all of these individuals received subsidies for all 10 of the last 10 years, compared with an average of 5.8 of 10 years for all individuals receiving rice deficiency payments.

Recipient Category: Corporations with Stockholders

A total of 5,127 corporations captured more than $614 million in rice deficiency subsidies from 1985 to 1994. The top 103 corporations, or 2 percent of the total, were paid just under $50 million, an average of $482,037 in rice deficiency payments per top corporation over ten years. These top corporations earned four times as much as the average corporation receiving rice deficiency subsidies; received payments in nearly twice as many years (9.8 years out of 10, as compared with 5.2 years out of 10 for all corporations); and received more than twice as much subsidy per year of participation as the average corporation.

Recipient Category: General Partnerships

Over the past decade, 4,328 general partnerships were paid just over $1 billion in rice deficiency subsidies. Of that total, $137 million, or 13.5 percent of all rice deficiency subsidies to general partnerships, went to just 87 general partnerships. The average general partnership in this top 2 percent was paid more than $1.57 million in rice deficiency subsidies from 1985 through 1994, or 6.7 times the amount received by the average general partnership. The general partnerships among these top 2 percent received rice deficiency subsidies 7.8 years out of ten, which was 3 more years out of 10 than the average general partnership received rice deficiency subsidies.

Recipient Category: Joint Ventures

USDA files indicate that 861 joint ventures received nearly $124 million in federal rice deficiency payments from 1985 to 1994. Most of this money was paid during the 1990's: from 1985 through 1989, rice deficiency payments to joint ventures ranged from $623 thousand to $6.8 million, while these payments ranged from $12.9 million to $35.5 million from 1990 through 1994.

Just 17 joint ventures, representing the top 2 percent of joint ventures receiving rice deficiency payments, were paid 14.5 percent of the total rice deficiency subsidy to all joint ventures. On average, these joint ventures were each paid more than $1 million in rice deficiency subsidies, more than 7 times what the average joint venture was paid. The top 2 percent of joint ventures also received farm subsidies an average of 2 more years out of 10 than the average joint venture, and was paid nearly five times as much during each year of participation as the average joint venture.

Information About the Top 50 Recipients: Rice Payments

The top 3 recipients of rice payments in the nation were also the top 3 recipients of total subsidies in the nation: two corporations in Stuttgart, Arkansas and a corporation in Sacramento, California. Most of the top 50 recipients were general partnerships, and each of the top 50 recipients was paid more than $1.76 million over 10 years. Only Louisiana, Arkansas, California, Mississippi, and Texas had recipients among the top 50 in rice payments. The top 50 individuals receiving rice payments all were paid more than $550,000 over 10 years, and each of these individuals collected in rice deficiency subsidies in every year between 1985 and 1994.

Chapter 5.  Corn

Recipient Category: All Recipients

Nationwide, more than $33.3 billion in corn deficiency payments were paid to 1.3 million recipients between 1985 and 1994. Of this total, more than $7.5 billion, or 22.6 percent of all corn deficiency subsidies, were paid to the 25,918 recipients constituting the top 2 percent of corn deficiency payment recipients. These top 2 percent received an average of $290,504 in corn deficiency payments over ten years, an amount 11.3 times greater than the $25,697 in corn deficiency payments received by the average participant. The top 2 percent also received subsidies more frequently than the average recipient--9.4 years out of 10, as compared with 5.4 years out of 10 for the average corn deficiency recipient. The average recipient among the top 2 percent was paid more than $30,000 in corn deficiency subsidies during each year of participation in the program.

Recipient Category: Individuals

Just over one million individuals received a total of $26.5 billion in corn deficiency payments over the last decade. The top 2 percent of these individuals, or 20,756 recipients, were paid nearly $5.5 billion, or 20.6 percent of all corn deficiency subsidy money to individuals. This top 2 percent of individual recipients was paid an average of $263,682 over the ten years examined, and received payments for an average of 9.6 years out of ten. In contrast, the average subsidy recipient was paid just $25,527 over ten years--less than one tenth of the amount that the top 2 percent received. The average individual participated in the corn deficiency programs about a third less frequently than the top 2 percent of recipients.

Recipient Category: Corporations with Stockholders

Nearly 40,000 corporations received approximately $2.9 billion in corn deficiency payments over the last 10 years. Of this total, $364 million, or 12.7 percent of the total corn deficiency payments, went to the 787 corporations among the top 2 percent. These top corporations received an average of $47,184 in corn deficiency money each year of participation, as compared to $12,321 per year of participation for the average corporate recipient of corn deficiency payments. The top corporations also received corn deficiency subsidies more often than the average corporation: 9.8 out of the last 10 years, as compared to an average of 5.9 of 10 years for all corporations. The top 2 percent of corporations received an average of $462,847 in corn deficiency subsidies over 10 years--more than 6 times the amount paid to the average corporation.

Recipient Category: General Partnerships

From 1985 through 1994, more than $1.9 billion in corn deficiency subsidies were paid to 35,374 general partnerships nationwide. The top 2 percent of these general partnerships--just 707 in number--received $441 million, or 22.2 percent of all corn deficiency payments to general partnerships. These top general partnerships were each paid, on average, a total of $624,014 over the decade, more than 11 times the amount paid to the average general partnership. The top general partnerships also participated in corn deficiency programs more than 50 percent more frequently than the average: 8.8 years out of ten for the top 2 percent, as compared to 5.4 years of 10 for the average partnership. The top general partnerships received $70,656 in corn deficiency subsidies each year of participation, nearly 7 times the amount paid to the average partnership.

Recipient Category: Joint Ventures

Nearly 6,300 joint ventures received just over $174 million in corn deficiency payments over the past ten years. Almost 24 percent of these subsidies--$41.8 million--went to the 126 joint ventures among the top 2 percent of corn deficiency subsidy recipients. These 126 joint ventures received, on average, $331,673 in corn deficiency payments over 10 years, nearly 12 times the amount received by the average joint venture. These top joint ventures also received corn deficiency payments for 7.9 years out of 10, as compared with an average of 4.4 years of 10 for all joint ventures receiving corn deficiency payments.

Information About the Top 50 Recipients: Corn Payments

The top 6 recipients of corn payments received $2 million or more over the last 10 years, and the top 50 recipients of corn payments each received $1.2 million or more over the past 10 years. The top subsidy recipients were geographically diverse, but concentrated in the corn belt states, particularly Illinois. The top individuals for corn payments all received more than $775,000 over 10 years. The top 9 individuals all received more than $1 million in corn payments. Many of the top corn subsidy recipients benefited from large payments made by USDA from 1985 through 1989 to rent storage facilities for surplus corn.

Chapter 6.  Wheat

Recipient Category: All Recipients

From 1985 through 1994, more than one million recipients were paid a total of $18.2 billion in USDA wheat deficiency payments. Of this total, the top 2 percent of wheat deficiency subsidy recipients--numbering 21,015 individuals, corporations, general partnerships and other business entities--received 27.7 percent of all wheat deficiency payments. All told, more than $5 billion in wheat deficiency subsidies were funneled to the top 2 percent of recipients. These top recipients averaged $240,019 in wheat deficiency payments over the 10 years examined. In contrast, the average wheat deficiency recipient was paid just $17,287 over the past decade, or 13.8 times less than the average amount paid to the top 2 percent.

The top 2 percent of wheat deficiency recipients participated in the program for 9.2 years out of the last 10, nearly twice as long as the average for all wheat deficiency subsidy recipients, who participated for an average of 4.9 out of 10 years. On the basis of subsidies per year of participation, wheat deficiency payments to the top 2 percent of recipients far exceeded the payments to the average recipient: the top 2 percent were paid $26,002 per year of participation, 7.3 times as much as the $3,516 paid to the average wheat deficiency recipient per year of participation.

Recipient Category: Individuals

According to USDA data files, a total of 838,935 individuals received at least one wheat deficiency payment over the past 10 years; these individuals received a total of $14 billion in wheat deficiency subsidies from 1985 to 1994. The 16,779 individuals among the top 2 percent of wheat deficiency recipients captured 25.6 percent of all wheat deficiency payments, or $3.6 billion, over the same 10-year period. These top individuals received an average of $214,140 in wheat deficiency subsidies over the decade, an amount 12.8 times as high as the average payment ($16,688) to all wheat deficiency recipients over the same period. These top individuals also participated in the wheat deficiency programs far more frequently than the average recipient--9.5 years out of 10 for the top 2 percent of individuals, as compared with 5.2 years out of 10 for all individuals. Wheat deficiency payments to the top 2 percent of individuals averaged $22,464 per year of participation in the wheat deficiency program, compared to $3,171 per year of participation for the average individual.

Recipient Category: Corporations with Stockholders

Nationwide, 36,223 corporations with stockholders received a total of $1.7 billion in wheat deficiency payments from 1985 through 1994. The top 2 percent of these corporations was paid a total of $277 million, or 16.1 percent of all wheat deficiency subsidies to corporations. Each of the 724 corporations among the top 2 percent was paid, on average, $382,096 in wheat deficiency payments over the 10 years studied. In comparison, the average wheat deficiency recipient was paid $47,237 over 10 years, or about one-eighth the amount received by the average recipient in the top 2 percent. Nearly all the top corporations participated for all 10 years from 1985 through 1994, while the average corporation received wheat deficiency payments for just 5 of those 10 years.

Recipient Category: General Partnerships

A total of 32,683 general partnerships netted $1.3 billion in wheat deficiency payments from 1985 through 1994; the 654 general partnerships among the top 2 percent captured 26.3 percent of this total, or $346 million. The average general partnership among this top 2 percent was paid $528,641 in wheat deficiency payments over the period studied, and participated in the wheat deficiency program for an average of 8 out of 10 years. In contrast, the average general partnership was paid $40,166 over 10 years, thirteen times less than the amount that went to the top 2 percent, and participated just 4.6 years of the 10 years studied. The 654 general partnerships among the top 2 percent were paid an average of $65,578 in wheat deficiency subsidies each year of participation in the program.

Recipient Category: Joint Ventures

Over the past decade, nearly $151 million was paid to 5,377 joint ventures that participated in the wheat deficiency program. Of this total, $34.5 million, or 22.8 percent of all wheat deficiency subsidies to joint ventures, went to recipients among the top 2 percent. This top 2 percent, constituting just 108 ventures, was paid an average of $319,532 over the ten years examined, an amount that was 11.3 times greater than the $28,076 in wheat deficiency payments received by the average joint venture over the same period. The top two percent of joint ventures participated in wheat deficiency programs more frequently than the average--6.4 years of 10 for the top recipients, as compared with 3.7 years of 10 for the average recipient--and received nearly $50,000 in wheat deficiency payments per year of participation, 6.6 times the amount paid per year of participation to the average joint venture.

Information About the Top 50 Recipients: Wheat Payments

According to USDA subsidy files, the top recipient of wheat payments in the nation was a general partnership with a mailing address in Walhalla, North Dakota. It was paid $2.3 million in subsidies over the past decade, receiving payments in each of the last 10 years. This general partnership received subsidies from several different counties in North Dakota. Three other recipients were paid more than $2 million, and 45 of the top 50 recipients were paid a million dollars or more. The fifth largest recipient was paid $1.9 million in wheat payments for farms located in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi and Texas.

The top individual recipient for wheat payments was paid more than $1.5 million, had a mailing address in Horace, North Dakota, and received payments from a number of counties in North Dakota. The third largest individual recipient of wheat payments had a mailing address in Adams, Oregon, and received $1.1 million from farms located in Oregon, Washington and Idaho.

Acknowledgments

Authors

Kenneth A. Cook * Clark Williams * Andrew Art * Christopher Campbell * Frank Schima

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Molly Evans for design, desktop publishing, and Webweaving, and to Ron Blalock for the cover illustration.

The Cash Croppers was made possible by grants from the Joyce Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Wallace Genetic Foundation, The Ford Foundation, Working Assets Funding Service, and the Apple Computer Corporation.

Environmental Working Group is solely responsible for this report and its content.

Copyright © September 1995 by the Environmental Working Group/The Tides Foundation. All rights reserved. Produced in the United States of America.

Environmental Working Group

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C. The Environmental Working Group is a project of the Tides Foundation, a California Public Benefit Corporation based in San Francisco that provides administrative and program support services to nonprofit programs and projects.

Kenneth A. Cook, President
Mark B. Childress, Vice President for Policy
Richard Wiles, Vice President for Research


The Cash Croppers in your State

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming


The Cash Croppers: Alabama

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $993 million to 52,338 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Alabama. But 39.7 percent of those payments -- $394 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 1,047 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $45,005 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Alabama got $5,089 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 Alabama recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 3.7 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 8.3 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 Alabama an average of $376,547 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Alabama received 19.8 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Alabama 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 Alabama 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 Alabama 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 Alabama 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 Alabama and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Alaska

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $14 million to 384 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Alaska. But 32.7 percent of those payments -- $5 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 8 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $65,223 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Alaska got $13,351 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 Alaska recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 2.6 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 Alaska an average of $562,556 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Alaska received 15.7 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Alaska 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 Alaska 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 Alaska 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 Alaska 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 Alaska and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Arizona

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $780 million to 25,390 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Arizona. But 51.8 percent of those payments -- $404 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 508 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $108,473 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Arizona got $9,770 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 Arizona recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 3.1 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 7.3 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 Arizona an average of $794,971 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Arizona received 25.8 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Arizona 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 Arizona 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 Arizona 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 Arizona 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 Arizona and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Arkansas

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $3.9 billion to 71,969 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Arkansas. But 29 percent of those payments -- $1.1 billion -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 1,439 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $88,015 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Arkansas got $12,738 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 Arkansas recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 4.2 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 8.9 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 Arkansas an average of $785,284 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Arkansas received 14.5 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Arkansas 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 Arkansas 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 Arkansas 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 Arkansas 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 Arkansas and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: California

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $3.6 billion to 48,088 Federal farm subsidy recipients in California. But 27.6 percent of those payments -- $985 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 962 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $139,842 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in California got $21,422 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 California recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 3.4 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 7.3 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 California an average of $1,023,524 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the California received 13.8 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average California 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 California 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 California 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 California 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 California and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Colorado

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $2.2 billion to 47,880 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Colorado. But 25.5 percent of those payments -- $569 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 958 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $62,452 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Colorado got $9,856 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 Colorado recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 4.7 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9.5 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 Colorado an average of $594,408 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Colorado received 12.7 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Colorado 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 Colorado 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 Colorado 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 Colorado 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 Colorado and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Connecticut

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $26 million to 1,791 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Connecticut. But 40.8 percent of those payments -- $11 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 36 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $37,562 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Connecticut got $4,575 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 Connecticut recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 3.2 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 7.9 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 Connecticut an average of $299,453 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Connecticut received 20.2 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Connecticut 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 Connecticut 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 Connecticut 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 Connecticut 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 Connecticut and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Delaware

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $58 million to 2,260 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Delaware. But 29.4 percent of those payments -- $17 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 45 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $41,926 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Delaware got $7,852 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 Delaware recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 3.2 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9 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 Delaware an average of $379,197 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Delaware received 14.7 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Delaware 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 Delaware 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 Delaware 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 Delaware 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 Delaware and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Florida

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $468 million to 24,613 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Florida. But 35.3 percent of those payments -- $165 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 492 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $57,193 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Florida got $6,894 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 Florida recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 2.7 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 5.8 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 Florida an average of $335,602 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Florida received 17.6 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Florida 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 Florida 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 Florida 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 Florida 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 Florida and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Georgia

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $1.6 billion to 61,391 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Georgia. But 32.9 percent of those payments -- $510 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 1,228 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $45,857 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Georgia got $6,244 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 Georgia recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 4 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9 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 Georgia an average of $415,557 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Georgia received 16.4 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Georgia 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 Georgia 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 Georgia 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 Georgia 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 Georgia and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Hawaii

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $11 million to 1,557 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Hawaii. But 27 percent of those payments -- $3 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 31 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $35,482 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Hawaii got $4,985 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 Hawaii recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 1.4 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 2.7 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 Hawaii an average of $96,145 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Hawaii received 13.5 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Hawaii 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 Hawaii 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 Hawaii 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 Hawaii 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 Hawaii and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Idaho

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $1.5 billion to 32,051 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Idaho. But 25 percent of those payments -- $383 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 641 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $66,130 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Idaho got $10,526 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 Idaho recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 4.5 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9 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 Idaho an average of $597,852 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Idaho received 12.5 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Idaho 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 Idaho 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 Idaho 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 Idaho 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 Idaho and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Illinois

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $7.5 billion to 223,929 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Illinois. But 21.8 percent of those payments -- $1.6 billion -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 4,479 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $38,037 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Illinois got $5,861 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 Illinois recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 5.7 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9.6 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 Illinois an average of $365,868 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Illinois received 10.9 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Illinois 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 Illinois 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 Illinois 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 Illinois 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 Illinois and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Indiana

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $3.4 billion to 121,950 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Indiana. But 24.8 percent of those payments -- $854 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 2,439 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $36,615 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Indiana got $5,469 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 Indiana recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 5.1 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9.5 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 Indiana an average of $350,148 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Indiana received 12.4 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Indiana 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 Indiana 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 Indiana 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 Indiana 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 Indiana and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Iowa

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $10.5 billion to 225,826 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Iowa. But 17.7 percent of those payments -- $1.9 billion -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 4,517 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $42,264 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Iowa got $7,743 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 Iowa recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 5.9 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9.7 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 Iowa an average of $410,962 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Iowa received 8.8 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Iowa 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 Iowa 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 Iowa 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 Iowa 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 Iowa and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Kansas

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $7.1 billion to 191,499 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Kansas. But 24 percent of those payments -- $1.7 billion -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 3,830 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $45,788 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Kansas got $6,122 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 Kansas recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 6 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9.7 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 Kansas an average of $445,351 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Kansas received 12 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Kansas 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 Kansas 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 Kansas 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 Kansas 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 Kansas and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Kentucky

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $969 million to 75,859 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Kentucky. But 33.9 percent of those payments -- $329 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 1,517 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $23,911 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Kentucky got $3,122 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 Kentucky recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 4 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9 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 Kentucky an average of $216,572 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Kentucky received 16.9 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Kentucky 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 Kentucky 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 Kentucky 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 Kentucky 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 Kentucky and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Louisiana

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $2.1 billion to 61,063 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Louisiana. But 32.5 percent of those payments -- $696 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 1,221 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $63,284 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Louisiana got $8,803 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 Louisiana recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 3.9 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9 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 Louisiana an average of $569,819 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Louisiana received 16.2 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Louisiana 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 Louisiana 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 Louisiana 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 Louisiana 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 Louisiana and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Maine

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $96 million to 8,293 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Maine. But 31.4 percent of those payments -- $30 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 166 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $25,376 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Maine got $3,937 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 Maine recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 2.9 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 7.1 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 Maine an average of $180,691 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Maine received 15.6 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Maine 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 Maine 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 Maine 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 Maine 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 Maine and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Maryland

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $252 million to 9,845 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Maryland. But 29.5 percent of those payments -- $74 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 197 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $41,543 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Maryland got $6,550 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 Maryland recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 3.9 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9 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 Maryland an average of $377,689 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Maryland received 14.7 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Maryland 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 Maryland 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 Maryland 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 Maryland 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 Maryland and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Massachusetts

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $38 million to 3,468 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Massachusetts. But 46.4 percent of those payments -- $17 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 69 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $36,637 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Massachusetts got $4,105 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 Massachusetts recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 2.6 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 6.9 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 Massachusetts an average of $253,276 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Massachusetts received 23.3 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Michigan

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $2.0 billion to 71,106 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Michigan. But 28.1 percent of those payments -- $573 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 1,422 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $44,038 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Michigan got $6,192 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 Michigan recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 4.6 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9.1 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 Michigan an average of $402,851 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Michigan received 14 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Michigan 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 Michigan 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 Michigan 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 Michigan 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 Michigan and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Minnesota

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $6.9 billion to 145,297 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Minnesota. But 19.8 percent of those payments -- $1.4 billion -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 2,906 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $48,095 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Minnesota got $8,498 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 Minnesota recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 5.5 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9.7 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 Minnesota an average of $466,921 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Minnesota received 9.8 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Minnesota 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 Minnesota 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 Minnesota 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 Minnesota 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 Minnesota and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Mississippi

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $2.5 billion to 63,448 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Mississippi. But 34.8 percent of those payments -- $878 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 1,269 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $86,855 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Mississippi got $10,367 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 Mississippi 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 7.9 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 Mississippi an average of $691,834 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Mississippi received 17.4 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Mississippi 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 Mississippi 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 Mississippi 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 Mississippi 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 Mississippi and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Missouri

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $3.4 billion to 135,920 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Missouri. But 26.2 percent of those payments -- $883 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 2,718 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $34,467 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Missouri got $5,118 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 Missouri recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 4.8 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9.4 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 Missouri an average of $324,817 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Missouri received 13.1 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Missouri 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 Missouri 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 Missouri 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 Missouri 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 Missouri and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Montana

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $3.1 billion to 45,024 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Montana. But 20.7 percent of those payments -- $633 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 900 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $73,105 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Montana got $12,473 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 Montana recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 5.4 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9.6 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 Montana an average of $703,519 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Montana received 10.3 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Montana 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 Montana 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 Montana 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 Montana 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 Montana and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Nebraska

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $7.0 billion to 140,360 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Nebraska. But 20 percent of those payments -- $1.4 billion -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 2,807 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $51,426 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Nebraska got $8,211 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 Nebraska recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 6 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9.7 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 Nebraska an average of $500,301 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Nebraska received 10 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Nebraska 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 Nebraska 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 Nebraska 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 Nebraska 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 Nebraska and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Nevada

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $57 million to 2,579 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Nevada. But 35 percent of those payments -- $20 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 52 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $54,685 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Nevada got $7,715 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 Nevada recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 2.8 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 7 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 Nevada an average of $382,798 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Nevada received 17.3 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Nevada 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 Nevada 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 Nevada 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 Nevada 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 Nevada and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: New Hampshire

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $21 million to 2,660 Federal farm subsidy recipients in New Hampshire. But 50 percent of those payments -- $11 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 53 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $27,699 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in New Hampshire got $3,268 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 New Hampshire recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 2.4 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 7.2 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 New Hampshire an average of $199,645 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the New Hampshire received 25 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average New Hampshire 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 New Hampshire 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 New Hampshire 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 New Hampshire 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 New Hampshire and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: New Jersey

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $99 million to 3,263 Federal farm subsidy recipients in New Jersey. But 22.5 percent of those payments -- $22 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 65 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $42,124 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in New Jersey got $8,439 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 New Jersey recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 3.6 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 8.1 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 New Jersey an average of $344,121 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the New Jersey received 11.3 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average New Jersey 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 New Jersey 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 New Jersey 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 New Jersey 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 New Jersey and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: New Mexico

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $659 million to 27,932 Federal farm subsidy recipients in New Mexico. But 40.8 percent of those payments -- $269 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 559 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $52,583 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in New Mexico got $6,513 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 New Mexico recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 3.6 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9.1 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 New Mexico an average of $480,774 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the New Mexico received 20.3 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average New Mexico 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 New Mexico 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 New Mexico 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 New Mexico 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 New Mexico and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: New York

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $648 million to 28,280 Federal farm subsidy recipients in New York. But 30.6 percent of those payments -- $198 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 566 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $40,174 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in New York got $6,013 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 New York 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 8.7 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 New York an average of $350,139 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the New York received 15.2 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average New York 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 New York 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 New York 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 New York 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 New York and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: North Carolina

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $969 million to 78,457 Federal farm subsidy recipients in North Carolina. But 40.5 percent of those payments -- $393 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 1,569 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $29,028 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in North Carolina got $3,183 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 North Carolina 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 North Carolina an average of $250,245 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the North Carolina received 20.2 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average North Carolina 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 North Carolina 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 North Carolina 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 North Carolina 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 North Carolina and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: North Dakota

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $5.6 billion to 89,171 Federal farm subsidy recipients in North Dakota. But 16.8 percent of those payments -- $935 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 1,783 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $53,445 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in North Dakota got $9,745 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 North Dakota recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 6.4 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9.8 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 North Dakota an average of $524,528 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the North Dakota received 8.3 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average North Dakota 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 North Dakota 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 North Dakota 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 North Dakota 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 North Dakota and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Ohio

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $2.4 billion to 103,679 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Ohio. But 26.1 percent of those payments -- $625 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 2,074 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $31,918 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Ohio got $4,704 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 Ohio recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 4.9 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9.4 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 Ohio an average of $301,345 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Ohio received 13 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Ohio 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 Ohio 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 Ohio 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 Ohio 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 Ohio and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Oklahoma

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $2.9 billion to 95,250 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Oklahoma. But 25.5 percent of those payments -- $727 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 1,905 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $39,463 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Oklahoma got $5,821 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 Oklahoma recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 5.1 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9.6 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 Oklahoma an average of $381,710 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Oklahoma received 12.7 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Oregon

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $877 million to 28,808 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Oregon. But 35.1 percent of those payments -- $308 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 576 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $58,919 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Oregon got $8,018 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 Oregon 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 9 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 Oregon an average of $533,857 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Oregon received 17.5 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Oregon 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 Oregon 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 Oregon 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 Oregon 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 Oregon and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


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.


The Cash Croppers: Rhode Island

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $1.9 million to 382 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Rhode Island. But 32.5 percent of those payments -- $0.6 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 8 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $13,356 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Rhode Island got $1,731 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 Rhode Island recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 2.9 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 5.8 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 Rhode Island an average of $78,467 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Rhode Island received 15.5 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Rhode Island 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 Rhode Island 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 Rhode Island 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 Rhode Island 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 Rhode Island and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: South Carolina

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $698 million to 29,972 Federal farm subsidy recipients in South Carolina. But 37.2 percent of those payments -- $260 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 599 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $48,981 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in South Carolina got $5,757 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 South Carolina recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 4 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 8.8 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 South Carolina an average of $433,552 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the South Carolina received 18.6 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average South Carolina 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 South Carolina 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 South Carolina 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 South Carolina 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 South Carolina and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: South Dakota

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $3.5 billion to 81,973 Federal farm subsidy recipients in South Dakota. But 21.8 percent of those payments -- $771 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 1,639 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $49,018 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in South Dakota got $7,265 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 South Dakota recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 5.9 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9.6 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 South Dakota an average of $470,414 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the South Dakota received 10.9 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average South Dakota 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 South Dakota 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 South Dakota 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 South Dakota 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 South Dakota and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Tennessee

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $1.1 billion to 79,290 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Tennessee. But 39.7 percent of those payments -- $449 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 1,586 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $32,435 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Tennessee got $3,708 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 Tennessee 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 8.7 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 Tennessee an average of $282,918 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Tennessee received 19.8 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Tennessee 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 Tennessee 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 Tennessee 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 Tennessee 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 Tennessee and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Texas

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $10.8 billion to 237,448 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Texas. But 25.7 percent of those payments -- $2.8 billion -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 4,749 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $62,409 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Texas got $9,550 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 Texas recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 4.7 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9.3 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 Texas an average of $585,336 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Texas received 12.8 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Texas 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 Texas 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 Texas 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 Texas 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 Texas and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Utah

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $344 million to 14,567 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Utah. But 35.5 percent of those payments -- $122 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 291 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $47,305 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Utah got $6,336 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 Utah recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 3.7 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 8.8 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 Utah an average of $418,921 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Utah received 17.7 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Utah 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 Utah 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 Utah 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 Utah 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 Utah and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Vermont

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $65 million to 5,140 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Vermont. But 40.9 percent of those payments -- $27 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 103 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $40,465 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Vermont got $5,284 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 Vermont recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 2.3 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 6.3 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 Vermont an average of $258,506 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Vermont received 20.4 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Vermont 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 Vermont 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 Vermont 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 Vermont 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 Vermont and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Virginia

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $425 million to 39,590 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Virginia. But 41.2 percent of those payments -- $175 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 792 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $25,449 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Virginia got $3,097 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 Virginia recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 3.4 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 Virginia an average of $220,694 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Virginia received 20.5 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Virginia 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 Virginia 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 Virginia 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 Virginia 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 Virginia and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Washington

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $2.0 billion to 35,927 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Washington. But 23.8 percent of those payments -- $479 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 719 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $73,531 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Washington got $12,345 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 Washington recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 4.5 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9 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 Washington an average of $666,490 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Washington received 11.8 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Washington 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 Washington 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 Washington 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 Washington 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 Washington and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: West Virginia

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $76 million to 16,073 Federal farm subsidy recipients in West Virginia. But 44.3 percent of those payments -- $34 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 321 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $13,291 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in West Virginia got $1,537 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 West Virginia recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 3 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 7.9 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 West Virginia an average of $105,297 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the West Virginia received 22.1 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average West Virginia 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 West Virginia 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 West Virginia 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 West Virginia 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 West Virginia and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Wisconsin

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $2.8 billion to 107,632 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Wisconsin. But 25.3 percent of those payments -- $701 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 2,153 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $35,177 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Wisconsin got $5,589 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 Wisconsin recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 4.6 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9.2 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 Wisconsin an average of $325,406 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Wisconsin received 12.6 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Wisconsin 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 Wisconsin 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 Wisconsin 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 Wisconsin 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 Wisconsin and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.


The Cash Croppers: Wyoming

Over the past ten years American taxpayers funneled $326 million to 11,034 Federal farm subsidy recipients in Wyoming. But 32.3 percent of those payments -- $105 million -- went to just two percent of those recipients. Among these 221 recipients in the top two percent, Federal farm subsidies averaged $52,000 per year of participation. By comparison, the average recipient in Wyoming got $7,473 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 Wyoming recipient was given Federal farm subsidies in 3.9 out of the last ten years, the average rate of participation for those among the top two percent was 9.1 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 Wyoming an average of $476,710 in Federal farm subsidies over the past ten years. That means that the top recipients in the Wyoming received 16.1 times the amount of subsidy payments that went to the average Wyoming 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 Wyoming 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 Wyoming 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 Wyoming 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 Wyoming and other states are likely to emerge from the 1995 budget wars virtually unscathed.

Key Issues: