Link here to WSJ.
About every six weeks, Connie writes me to "complain" about farm subsidies to North Dakota farmers. Connie tells me she is a liberal. She has asked that I not post her comments, so I don't. I assume she will send me the above link.
As usual, the WSJ has a great graphic. And Connie is correct. North Dakota farmers get a lot of subsidies.
Check out the graphic. The WSJ uses relative size of circles over each state to depict relative amount of subsidies going to each state.
The first thing one notices is that most farm subsidies go to states where there is a lot of farming.
Okay, seriously.
The circle overlaying California is a small circle, about the size of the Los Angeles metropolitan area on the map.
The circle overlaying North Dakota is about 7/8ths the size of the state of North Dakota. There is a bit of North Dakota showing from outside the circle, but not much.
There is only one state in which the circle is bigger than the state: that most liberal of states -- IOWA. Yes, the circle overlaying Iowa completely covers Iowa as well as a bit of each surrounding state. There is only one other state that comes close to Iowa in overall size and almost obliterating out the state itself: that most liberal of states - ILLINOIS.
That most liberal of states -- MINNESOTA -- is in the same mix as IOWA and ILLINOIS. President Clinton's home state is almost completely obliterated by the circle and is about the same size as the North Dakota circle.
You know, on second thought, I don't think Connie will send me the link. She has no problem with Iowa getting subsidies, only North Dakota.
I do not know if subsidies for ethanol are part of the IOWA subsidy program but I assume they are. But maybe not. The picture caption suggests "direct payments to farmers."
Most disturbing: how little (relatively) the southern states (except for Texas) get in subsidies. [The circles in Massachusetts and Maine are microscopic.]
To understand why the north get more subsidies,one needs to understand why they exist and why they haven't evolved. The north produces more crops that can be stored long-term (corn, wheat...) these were the crops that had the biggest need (at the time) for subsidies. If the south produced more corn and wheat then they'd get more.
ReplyDeleteIf it makes you feel better, most of the southern states get far more federal dollars than they pay in while a bigger percentage of northern states pay in more than they get back.
I just want Connie to "feel better."
DeleteHi Bruce; the average person does not understand these payments. I am a relatively young farmer - i have farmed for 18 years. The reason there are payments is simple: to keep the price of grain down. Grain buyers know exactly what farmers get in subsidies and therefor know what they can pay for the grain. If you take them away grain goes up and food goes up. There is a reason that grain prices have hovered just above federally backed insurance prices.
DeleteFood is the most underpriced commodity in the world. It's the most important thing in the world, but it is cheap. Ag is only 3% of the GDP in the US!!!!!!!!!!! You have to be kidding. The subsidies are nothing - they are less then the auto makers got!!!! And the US feeds the world.
One more thing - every industry and virtually every person is getting a subsidy from the government today - that's a fact. Connie needs to open her eyes and use her brain. Except liberals don't have brains>>>
Thank you for writing.
DeleteI hope I am not being misunderstood. I am on your side 100%.
I can't remember when it started but some time ago Connie would write periodically that the reason North Dakota's economy was going so well was due to all the subsidies.
It was great to see a graphic that put North Dakota's payments in perspective, compared with the rest of the county. The direct payments to farmers are pretty much spread across the entire country, with some exceptions. Federal payments to farmers is about the last thing folks need to be worried about these days.
I hope you have a great year.
The attack on the federal spending North Dakota receives be it agriculture, education, roads or defense come from those who are envious of the state being very successful in the private sector with its pro-growth pro-business model.
DeleteI could agree some of these subsides should be done away with or drastically reduced but as long as they are there North Dakota should get the same amount as any other place based on where the programs are implemented.
The argument the state receives more dollars than the they pay into the federal government is a red herring. These programs are the result of action by the federal government and are not biased on the population of any state. If this so angers high population states then why didn't the lobby the government for missile silos in their neighborhoods of New York City, Boston, Chicago and Los Angles.
Yes, I agree. NIMBY.
DeleteNew York State looks to ban fracking but wow, the outcry if fracking banned nationwide and natural gas jumped back to $8 or worse.