Wow. What a way to expose a disastrous lack of oversight, especially in times like these.

This just makes me angry. All things like this do is make it more difficult for the small family run farm to stay in business.

I agree with Jude and Mykie 100%.

I want to add that it's stuff like this that makes me a fiscal-conservative. I just do not believe that the government can run a tight ship. Obviously, private sector companies drop the ball too (gee - can't think of any examples right now , but generally, they are more efficient, keep better track of their moeny, and make sure that people making decisions have paygrades that give them access to important information.

They didn't need access to IRS records, the Environmental Working Group had a listing of top 2007 farm subsidy recipients on its website. Guess they don't read at the Department of Agriculture.

This is one of the reasons my family got out of the farming business. This makes it very difficult for smaller farms.

I am pretty sure this is Bush's doing. I looked closer at that picture above and i think i saw him looming in the backround, getting ready to take the taxpayers money, do you see him too?

"This just makes me angry. All things like this do is make it more difficult for the small family run farm to stay in business."

Yep.

At a time when people have it hard, and small farmers have had it especially so for decades. Not to mention the fact that American families trying to make a living FEEDING American families isn't a bad thing in this era of corporatization of food supplies.

I lived in a village for a few years and there was a sign on the farm down the road "Eggs for sale". Let me tell you - them's good eggs. And damn, I wish this could be something available to everyone. It'd sure be better than the grocery store chicken that made both my boyfriend and I sick tonight.

5 HOURS I worked on that stock. FIVE HOURS.

Its back to organic for me, I should have known better.

wow steph - you'd think that USDA would know that. Maybe you should try to get a political appointee position there as you seem to be more on top of things that the current employees. (Not being sarcastic!)

CG - you are on a tear today!

This reminds of that dum email forward going around after the floods in Iowa (I saw multiple versions) about how people in the midwest didn't moan and complain because they're sooo self-reliant and take responsibility for their actions and don't look to the government for handouts.

It was baloney then, and it still is.

krank dont be jealous of my microsoft Paint skills.

Oh, man. I misspelled "dumb." I'm going to go sit in the corner.

I truly believe that Obama will fix this. I further belive that Obama will take away CG's microsoft paint rights. Because after January the person that is going to get microsoft painted will be him. And we can't have that. We just can't.

"take responsibility for their actions"
more myths surround this idea than Santa Claus.

@ CG

I bet the government does a better job subsidizing medicine though.

"I just do not believe that the government can run a tight ship."

Me thinks you're in for a rude awakening.

Hmm... if somebody who doesn't believe the government can run a tight ship is proven wrong, I think it would be far more of a 'pleasant surprise' than a 'rude awakening'.

indie-

Again, I hope so since apparently they will be running everything.

The entire world! Power-hungry bastards. I LOVE it.

Very cute picture CG!!! Love it!

Sometimes I think the "they can't do anything right" approach is just an excuse to let leaders run wild. No, they can be held accountable and things can be better run. Money can be spent more wisely. We just have to demand better, and not throw up our hands and expect it to happen. Of course I don't think it will every be completely rooted out, but there are ways to make it much, much better.

I think all the farm stuff needs to be rethought.

My boyfriend's parents were given some land through inheritance. Somehow if they don't farm it, they're paid more than if they do farm it, in order to encourage people to let their land recover or something crazy like that. Meanwhile, they don't live anywhere near this land, and never will again in their lifetime!

So they fill out some forms, and make money for not farming. It just seems so odd.

Anyway, this is certainly disappointing to see. I agree that it's further proof of government waste. It's never fun to see your tax dollars hard at work like this. And I agree w/ kranky that this is one of the reason I'm a fiscal conservative as well.

Ultimately, I think everyone is a "fiscal conservative" in that they do not want government waste. How many people would answer "yes" when asked if they would like their tax dollars to be squandered?

Pop, while it might seem silly to encourage people to not farm land, soil gets depleted of nutrients if it is over farmed (especially with the same crops year after year). In order to keep farmland in the United States fertile, it would make sense that they would encourage people to not farm all of the time.

I do think that the farm subsidies area needs massive renovation, and I do think that there are far too many subsidies being given out. However, not all of them are bad or misguided. This area needs a very fine tooth comb!

I agree with Jillness. It is not good to continually farm in one location year after year. But giving land a break is not the same as never farming there again. I thought though, for the most part, the land is still farmed they just rotate the type of crops being planted every year or so on that land so as not to deplete the nutrients.

"In order to keep farmland in the United States fertile, it would make sense that they would encourage people to not farm all of the time."

Are the farmers really so shortsighted as to deplete their own land? Aren't they aware that there are crops which replenish their soil? I think as farmers, they know how to best farm.

Since the U.S. Federal Government is not a farmer, I don't think that they should be involved in figuring out crop rotations.

org is absolutely right. There are many, many ways to land fertile that do not involve NOT growing things on it. George Washington Carver was involved in this kind of research, to name one.

(Being a fiscal conservative is about more than just wanting to reduce wasteful government spending, but thanks for the olive branch Jill. )

Ever heard of the Dust Bowl?

I have, I have!!!

Then Bella knows that farmers can make mistakes with their land: sometimes follow the wrong advice, sometimes push their luck in an effort to make enough money to keep going, sometimes use chemicals that make the land depend on chemicals...

Steph, I think mother nature had a hand in the Dust Bowl. You can't just blame the farmers.

No one's BLAMING the farmers but they did contribute to the problem. The point is that farmers don't always or naturally know what's best for their land and yes, some are short-sighted and deplete their own land.

Not to mention that crops and agriculture are one of the biggest products that the US exports. There is a reason it gathers so much attention and money. It is part of the power of the US.

Saying the US gov't is not a farmer is a pretty simplistic way to end the discussion. Just because a person is a farmer doesn't mean they know everything there is to know about agriculture, land, new products and/or methods of farming. New methods and products are being discovered on a regular basis, and faults are found with old traditions. Not that the government knows best all the time either...but they can help each other.

As I said before, I think that the subsidies need to be gone over with a fine tooth comb, but it is possible that some government recommendations might be highly valuable and not as frivolous as it appears on face value.

Does the market account for people who do not know how to farm their own land and therefore can't sustain it?

Actually Organic, the market would sort those people out. But unfortunately the people with the farming know-how might soon be replaced with the people who know how to manipulate the subsidy programs.

Nice, like an alley oop. Let me toss up another one.

Is keeping commodity prices high the real reason for farm subsidies?

Farming is the most bailed out industry in America.

"Saying the US gov't is not a farmer is a pretty simplistic way to end the discussion. Just because a person is a farmer doesn't mean they know everything there is to know about agriculture, land, new products and/or methods of farming. New methods and products are being discovered on a regular basis, and faults are found with old traditions. Not that the government knows best all the time either...but they can help each other."

I can speak from from being on a farm for 22 years that the government isn't a farmer, and 99 times out of 100 knows nothing about farming. All the government can do is help monetarily. Any farmer worth his salt is on top of things when it comes to techniques, technology, and farm economics. You'd be surprised how smart good farmers are. Please tell me you have some real insight to agriculture because your last 2 sentences look like the musings of a city-slicker. No offense:)

Oh boy, speaking of the musings of a city-slicker:

"Ever heard of the Dust Bowl?"

Yes, years of drought plus no/minimum till seeding was about 50 years from being invented. Can't fault "dumb farmers who need the all wise government" there.

"Then Bella knows that farmers can make mistakes with their land: sometimes follow the wrong advice, sometimes push their luck in an effort to make enough money to keep going, sometimes use chemicals that make the land depend on chemicals..."

Is the point that because farmers aren't perfect, they then need government? Even if your examples were plausible, they wouldn't mandate government helping dumb old farmers. A better example you could use in this debate is that a farmer may not take out the proper insurance on land, crops, or machinery. A farmer is 100% dependent on the weather for his farm to be successful. The smartest, best, most hard working farmer can have a total loss of crop with a large hailstorm, or lack of rainfall. A twister could destroy millions of dollars worth of machinery. If a farmer isn't smart enough to take out proper insurance, he will need to be bailed out by the government. Should the government mandate insurance? I would say no, you might say yes. The way we are going here in this country it's probably not outside the realm of possibility.

"No one's BLAMING the farmers but they did contribute to the problem. The point is that farmers don't always or naturally know what's best for their land and yes, some are short-sighted and deplete their own land."

As I noted before, farmers usually know what is best. The vast minority is short sighted and don't know what is best for them. If anything, these programs prop up their stupidity and keep them in the game. At some point economic darwinism should happen and they take up another trade.

I find it interesting/important that you say 'being on a farm 22 years' and not as 'someone with 22 years of farming experience'. The difference tells in your comment.

Remember last month when you made a point, Stephley? That was awesome.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone! I hope you all enjoy your subsidized food

Well, I'm glad to hear from someone with actual farming experience beavis, even if others don't think that's important.

Sure, I'm glad I could offer. It's really tough being a fiscal conservative in agriculture. I doubt there is another industry that is more subsidized and regulated than agriculture. I suppose you could make the case that the government can tell farmers whatever it feels they should be doing because they are propping up the industry so m