Farm subsidy payments to the wealthy questioned
Congressional report says $49.4 million was received improperly

BY CHRIS CASTEEL
Published: November 25, 2008

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Agriculture made nearly $50 million in farm payments in recent years to people who apparently were too wealthy to qualify for the subsidies, according to the Government Accountability Office.



Advertisement

Among the recipients of possibly improper payments:


• The founder and former executive of an insurance company, who got more than $300,000 from 2003 to 2006 in farm program payments.


• The top executive of a major financial services firm, who got $60,000 in farm program payments in 2003.


• The part owner of a pro sports team, who got more than $200,000 from 2003 to 2006 in farm program payments.

The 2002 farm bill prohibited some subsidy payments to people who had an average adjusted gross income of $2.5 million or more for the preceding three years — unless at least 75 percent of the income came from farming.

Problem may worsen

After examining IRS and USDA records, the Government Accountability Office found that 2,702 people had possibly received $49.4 million in payments improperly from 2003 through 2006.

The GAO, which is Congress’ accounting arm, said the problem could get worse under the new farm bill, which begins with the 2009 crop year and has even tighter restrictions on income for direct crop subsidies and conservation programs.

The GAO faulted the USDA for not having proper controls in place to prevent payments to people disqualified by their income.

The USDA asks people to certify that they meet the income requirements and typically relies on that information, though it can request an applicant to submit tax returns, according to the GAO.

The USDA countered that it doesn’t have the resources or the access to IRS records to ensure strict compliance with the income limits.

And it noted that the amount the GAO said may have been improperly paid was a tiny percentage of the $16 billion paid from farm programs.

The wealth of people receiving farm payments has been a sensitive issue in Congress for several years, as some lawmakers have argued that federal subsidies were meant to help small farmers, not huge businesses and rich absentee land owners.

For its report, the GAO also compared the wealth of farm program recipients to that of average tax filers.

It found that farm program participants were three times more likely to have an Adjusted Gross Income over $500,000 than people who don’t get farm subsidies.

Last year, the GAO criticized the USDA for paying out $1.1 billion from 1999 to 2005 in the names of 170,000 dead people.


Toolbar sponsored by: David Stanley Ford
Bookmark and Share

Related Topics: Domestic Policy, Political Policy, Politics, Price Controls and Subsidies, Agriculture Policy


Your thoughts!

Thank you for joining our conversations on NewsOK.com. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.

Editor's note: It is not our intent to offer comments on local crime or fatality stories.

Leave a comment

Log in below or sign up (it's free).





The article was very misleading. There was a $50,000 limit per entity so a husband could get $50,000 and his wife, or partner(s) could get $50,000. It is not like it was not too many years ago when,for instance, a national reporter got $200,000 for his hobby sheep farm in Colorado or a lawyer in Illinois got $3 million as his land sat idle.
Floyd, Oklahoma City - Nov 26, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Why can't this money be recovered? When a tax payer recieves an inflated tax refund due to error, they recover that money. Oh yeah that's right, if you are wealthy the current regime in DC will say you deserve it.
John, Norman - Nov 26, 2008 at 11:39 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore John
This article has one solid point: the federal agency administering the program under the Republican president did not have the proper controls in place to make sure the law was being followed. Same point in the banking industry where no regulation was the rule. This again points out how bad the Republicans are in administering something they do not believe in - government.
GS, Norman - Nov 25, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore GS
Oklahoma was known as a veritable hotbed of socialism in the early 1900's. Not much has changed except for what we call it, which depends on which party is in power.
Kevin, Oklahoma City - Nov 25, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Okay, let's see-government giving away free money leads to dishonesty. Hmmm, what a surprise. For you who think that all farmers are rich, you're crazy. Most of them are in debt up to their eyeballs. I don't believe in subsidies for anyone for anything, in theory. However, I know lots of broke farmers who would get out of the business out of necessity if they didn't have subsidies. Then, there are a lot of scumbuckets out there (just like there are liars in the corporate world, and those who milk unemployment and welfare)who would get out of the business just because they weren't getting paid tons of money for things they weren't doing. Also, anyone who says they see expensive farm equipment sitting around doing nothing probably doesn't know much about farming. Planting and harvesting times are short. You probably don't know what crop rotation is, either. Sometimes you have to leave a field fallow in order to keep from degrading the soil. Don't judge what's going on on a farm by what you see driving down the highway.
Heather, Stillwater - Nov 25, 2008 at 10:48 am
Here's a position I think 95% of us can support. Farming can be a tough proposition if you didn't inherit a lot of land or you're just struggling to hold on to what you have. Nobody begrudges someone getting some support payments to keep them going. What we don't like is the richest farmers in each county getting hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars in subsidies and they DO NOT need it other than to remain in the top 1% of this nations's net worth individuals and to maintain a lifestyle. The system is set up to pay the most to those who qualify for the most and that greatly depends on the amount of land you're farming. The little guy gets little checks and the big guys get big checks. There needs to be a ceiling on the amount received in any two year period. I'd top it at $50,000. If you can't make it with that kind of subsidy then you need to get into another line of work. For those who'd lose their hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars in subsidies, tough twinkie. No way you're going to get out of the farming business; you'd just find another way to make it work.
Z, Lake - Nov 25, 2008 at 10:21 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Z
I love tacos.
I am at, Mama's House - Nov 25, 2008 at 10:16 am
Why do people struggle with subsidies, but swallow corporate subsidies and never say a word? Agriculture is a tough business, but it is a rewarding business if you work hard and pay attention to what you are doing. The subsidies that you are seeing are nothing compared to the subisidies our farmers are fighting against overseas. Is there abuse in this system, of course there is, but at the same time it is necessary to keep people in business. There are very few full time farmers under the age of 62, most of us have a job in town and have to make ends meet some other way. Most of the money that you see floating around in farming circles is mineral money, its not from subsidies. Just remember that if you buy a car on payments and it hurts your pocket book try buying a $150,000 tractor on payments. What farming used to be about was subsistence living, not getting rich. Why do people still think we ought to work in a cabless tractor with an old one way? I don't get it, the romantic age of farming and is gone and it wasn't that great then anyway.
berry, arapaho - Nov 25, 2008 at 10:05 am
As an ex-farmer, why don't you who think it was easy and that we got lots of subsidies, go hundreds of thousands in debt, buy yourself a farm, and see if you can survive even with the tiny subsidies that now have pretty much been done away with. I had a dairy that didn't qualify for any type payment, but raised a few hundred acres of wheat also. I bought an old combine for $50 and in all the years I raised wheat, never made as much as $50 the whole time. All I did was get enough to pay for raising it plus the rent. To stay in business, my brother and I had to put up square bales by hand for neighbors or other work off the farm such as working in the oil industry. Finally, we got an oil well, the money from which we bought some new machinery, such as a tractor with an air-conditioned cab. Do you want to work in a clean office without air conditioning or heat? Well our job was always sweating or freezing. But the only complaint you would hear from most farmers is about the idiots that thought it was an easy life. living solely on handouts. TRY IT!
Floyd, Oklahoma City - Nov 25, 2008 at 9:59 am
Here's a web site that will show you what your neighbors and friends make off the USDA...it's pretty shocking. http://farm.ewg.org/farm/region.php?fips=40000
Jeff, pauls valley - Nov 25, 2008 at 8:51 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Jeff
Folks, the free market left us a long time ago. The original support for the farmer had good intentions, but like everything else, there are those who have learned to play the system. It is those folks who need to be taken out of the equation, but realize one thing, the best way for any government to control the masses is to keep food prices a low as possible. If anything, more oversight is needed to assure that the fat cats are not getting fatter..
JH, deep red creek - Nov 25, 2008 at 8:48 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore JH
Jimmy, who said putting them out of business was the answer? The answer is to stop the huge subsidy program to the richest farmers and let them make it or break it on the strength of what farming used to be about. Nobody has a "right" to being subsidized in order to make a living. Nobody. And they certainly don't have a right to being subsidized in order to create the system we have now. Get a clue: let the free market rule farming as it does most everything else and step in when there's a serious problem; don't make subsidies something to maintain a lifestyle.
Z, Lake - Nov 25, 2008 at 8:37 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Z
Z, Where would we buy our food if you put all of the farmers out of business?? China maybe???
Jimmy, Sandy Shores - Nov 25, 2008 at 7:45 am
I was raised in the Northwest part of the state where some of the best farmland in American is. And I still have friends there. But the obscene amount of farm aid they get is "justified" by them because they whine how "hard" farming is. Yet they all have nice homes, expensive equipment and their kids go to college driving nice vehicles. The truth is the farm program has fed billions of dollars to U.S. farmers at the expense of the U.S. taxpayers. You don't see people selling their multi-million dollar farming operations and putting it on interest. Why? Because they love the life and they get paid unbelievable amounts of government money to maintain their lifestyle. Tough to be a farmer? That's a hoot. Let them move to the city then and get a job...live like other people for awhile. You think it would be an easier life for them? LOL
Z, Lake - Nov 25, 2008 at 7:29 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Z
Drive around the rural areas of Oklahoma and check the farm and ranch fields. You can see the large tractors/equipment and huge barns sitting idle and no crops growing in the fields. Our government subsidies keep these farm and ranch fields (operating?) in this manner. The GAO article reflects the gross neglect of the USAD. Tomorrow it is forgotten and the rich keep getting the benefits. Is this really news?
Bob , Mill Creek - Nov 25, 2008 at 7:00 am
Over a billion dollars to dead people; an example of government efficiency. I firmly believe that government involvement is the quickest and surest way to screw up something.
Phil, Yukon - Nov 25, 2008 at 6:41 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Phil
All Obama going to do in the farm program is add more parasites.
wayne, blanchard - Nov 25, 2008 at 6:11 am
It found that farm program participants were three times more likely to have an Adjusted Gross Income over $500,000 than people who don’t get farm subsidies. Good old American farmers ! Backbone of the nation. I hope Obama introduces collective farms for unemployed people after he takes land from these parasites.
mister, bogata - Nov 25, 2008 at 4:33 am