Skip to main content

Federal Crop Insurance encourages destructive farming practices

Farmers Protest Unfair Crop Insurance
By John King

 On Monday, March 12, fifty local farmers and protesters picketed the headquarters of NAU Insurance near Anoka, to protest inequities in the current Farm Bill that contribute to the disappearance of family farms and lead to soil erosion and depletion on marginal farm land.  
“Crop insurance is the only Farm Bill program not subject to any limits on the amount of support any one operator can receive. It is uncapped,” said Randy Krzmarzick, who raises corn and soybeans near Sleepy Eye, Minn. “It gives the largest farm business operators access to more financial resources when renting or buying land, putting beginning farmers or small- and mid-sized diversified farms at a competitive disadvantage. We need reform.”  
Crop insurance is a significant part of the Farm Bill amounting to over $9 billion in federal dollars. The 2018 bill is currently being crafted in the U.S. House of Representatives. Crop insurance was started in 1938 to prevent farmers from being wiped out by weather disasters, but according to Krzmarzick, has evolved into an expensive program benefiting the largest farms and insurance companies and damaging the environment in the process. Taxpayer’s dollars support the program by subsidizing up to 60% of the cost of the insurance premiums.
The Anoka demonstratio0n coincided with the release of a Land Stewardship Project https://landstewardshipproject.org study that showed in detail how crop insurance leads to outsized profits for insurance companies such as NAU and for corporate farms.  
“The current crop insurance program benefits the largest farms and insurance companies the most, while penalizing farmers adopting good stewardship practices and making access to land for beginning farmers more difficult. We must protect a strong safety net for farmers, but at the same time we believe two critical reforms — sensible limits on subsidies and connecting the program to meaningful conservation-based farming practices -  are needed,” Ben Anderson, of the Land Stewardship Project (LSP), said. 

 According to LSP, the current farm bill makes it possible for large farms to buy marginal farm land, plant a crop and when the crop fails or doesn’t show sufficient profit, and receive insurance payments. Since there are no limits on the amount of insurable acreage that can receive a premium subsidy, the largest farms capable of buying more and more marginal land receive the lion’s share of the payouts. Some Minnesota farms have received more than a million dollars in payouts. LSP proposes limiting premium subsidy to $50,000 to control the inequities in the program.
Thanks to Wikipedia

The LSP report shows how the insurance companies are the true beneficiaries of the crop insurance program. For every dollar in insurance payouts that a farmer receives, the insurance company receives $1.44 amounting to more than $1.3 billion annually pocketed from taxpayer dollars and farmer premiums. 
Seventh District Representative Collin Peterson is the leading Democrat on the House Agricultural Committee that is currently writing the new farm bill. His office, when contacted, opposed writing reforms into the bill saying, “Capping payouts will undermine the insurance program causing acres to leave. This will undermine the ability of smaller producers to access it because of increased premiums.”  
The crop insurance industry has lobbied heavily to prevent reform of the program giving over $700,000 to Minnesota’s congressional delegation while the last Farm Bill was being drafted. 
Tom Nuessmeier, who farms near Le Sueur, points to two government studies that refute Peterson's claim.  

“There’s no real evidence that farmers like me would leave a $50,000 premium subsidy on the table and quit the program because we had to pay full unsubsidized price for acreage beyond that," he said. "The studies show subsidy caps will have minimal impact on premium costs for farmers.” 

Crop Insurance reform has been a central policy priority of Land Stewardship Project’s “Our Farm Bill” campaign.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Let us all walk in the foot steps of John Lewis

By John King In Selma, Alabama, on Sunday, March 7, 1965, John Lewis, standing in the lead of a long line of marchers, looked down from the crest of The Edmund Pettus Bridge at the line of police armed with clubs, whips and truncheons and said, “I am going to die here.” Lewis intended to lead the marchers from Selma to the capital Montgomery, to demand access to voting for Black people in Alabama. Sheriff Jim Clark lowered his gas mask and led the deputies, some on horseback and some on foot, into the line of marchers. Under swinging clubs and hooves trampling, Lewis was the first to go down. Women and children were not spared. Choking and blinded by tear gas, they were struck by clubs and truncheons wrapped with barbed wire. Lewis, with a fractured skull and a severe concussion, almost did die. The nearby Good Samaritan Hospital did not have enough beds to care for the injured marchers. A nation watched in horror as news footage of that bloody day appeared on T
2 comments
Read more

More Republican dirty tricks

  As a Blue Dog Corporate Democrat, 7th District Rep. Collin Peterson’s votes in Congress go against the beliefs and convictions of progressive voters in our district. I’m one of those progressive 7th District voters. Like most average voters I rarely actually encounter my Member of Congress. However, I recall three encounters with Rep. Peterson over the many years I’ve been stuck with him. I met him at Mikey’s Restaurant, on Main Street in Long Prairie, when he was first campaigning for a seat in Congress. We were both young then and he was full of energy and inspired in me a sense of hope for positive change. Besides, I’d met the Republican incumbent. He was an older man who, it seemed, was operating on dead batteries. I was happy to vote for the energetic Peterson. Some years later I was a delegate to the DFL District convention in Bemidji. Peterson opposed a woman’s right to choose abortion. He was being challenged by a woman who supported the right to that choice. I gave my
Post a Comment
Read more

Step aside Republicans; Minnesotans want electric vehicles

Late last month Senator Paul Gazelka, the Republican leader of the Senate, told the Minnesota Reformer that the Republican controlled Senate would likely fire the acting Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Laura Bishop, if the Agency, at the behest of the Governor, went ahead with the Clean Car Rule. The rule would require automakers to increase the number of electric vehicles they deliver to Minnesota auto dealers. Gazelka told The Reformer that he’d had “a conversation” with Bishop about the rule. Bishop has not been confirmed by the Senate. Gazelka, and his Republican colleagues, claim that electric vehicles are too expensive and that the rule would be a burden to Minnesotans. Gazelka, and the rest of his Party are wrong. They aren’t paying attention to the economics of EV ownership and they are not paying attention to consumer preferences. Way back in September 2019, Consumer Reports reported on a study of Minnesotans they had done in collaboration with the
2 comments
Read more