How cattle can help save the birds of the Great Plains

Rancher Bill Milton surveys his land with wildlife biologist Dan Casey from a bumpy dirt road etched into the mottled green and gold landscape, 50 miles outside of Billings. Rolling through the land in Casey’s Prius, we’re on the western margin of the northern Great Plains, where shortgrass prairie once dominated the landscape. Casey points out an apple-sized bird on the right hand of the road. It’s a chestnut-collared longspur, whose males sport a glossy black breast topped with a rich brown collar. Once numerous in the short and mixed grass prairies that used to be trimmed naturally by bison and wildfire, the longspur’s population has declined by more than 80 percent in the last 50 years. It’s not just this species that’s in trouble, says Casey, who co-authored the tome Birds of Montana, as well as the state’s massive avian management plan. According to Casey, since 1970 Great Plains grassland songbirds have declined nearly 70 percent, a collapse rivaling that of insect and marine fish populations. Climate change, outdated grazing practices and urbanization are definite factors in the decline but agriculture's intensification is the main culprit. Rancher Bill Milton surveys his land with wildlife biologist Dan Casey from a bumpy dirt road etched into the mottled green and gold landscape, 50 miles outside of Billings. Rolling through the land in Casey’s Prius, we’re on the western margin of the northern Great Plains, where shortgrass prairie once dominated the landscape. Casey points out an apple-sized bird on the right hand of the road. It’s a chestnut-collared longspur, whose males sport a glossy black breast topped with a rich brown collar. Once numerous in the short and mixed grass prairies that used to be trimmed naturally by bison and wildfire, the longspur’s population has declined by more than 80 percent in the last 50 years. It’s not just this species that’s in trouble, says Casey, who co-authored the tome Birds of Montana, as well as the state’s massive avian management plan. According to Casey, since 1970 Great Plains grassland songbirds have declined nearly 70 percent, a collapse rivaling that of insect and marine fish populations. Climate change, outdated grazing practices and urbanization are definite factors in the decline but agriculture's intensification is the main culprit...
 
Two sides of the road Though these birds and transient and somewhat inconspicuous, they can be spotted with a trained eye—and the economic services they provide humans include seed dispersal, insect predation, pollination, not to mention their symphony of songs. Casey explains, as we sit in the car, the differences between the left and the right side of the road. The left is dominated by non-native species like alfalfa and clover, appearing as a mix of olive, sage, and green tones. The right side, where we see much more bird life, appears more brown and wilted—but is actually healthier and more suitable for wildlife. Closer inspection of the ground on the left reveals hard and nearly bare terrain. “There are no grasses for the birds to nest in,” Casey explains. Local plant species that once sustained the ecosystem have been pushed out by exotic crops. The right side of the road, while less verdant, includes a mix of a native species like blue gramma, buffalo grass, and fringed sage. Decomposing duff from the prior season pads and protects the soil, a shade darker from the moisture it retains. Compared to the other side, this land is more resistant to weather extremes, disease, and unwanted insects—and provides more food, habitat, and serves as a storehouse of carbon, water, and important nutrients...MORE 

 agriculture's intensification is the main culprit

And what was the primary cause of that? Corn production now takes up 97 million acres, and Congress has been subsidizing corn ethanol for 30 years (now at around $6 billion a year), and farmers have responded by planting additional acreages of corn.

According to this article

That wasn't what was intended when Carter promoted the use of ethanol as a way to get America off imported oil, offering subsidies to industries to mix the fuel. The industry never really took off — even with the subsidies. By 2001, barely 6 percent of the corn crop was being used to produce ethanol. But new energy policies brought in by George W Bush which set production quota to encourage the use of biofuels allowed the industry to take off. By last year, nearly 40 percent of U.S. corn was going to produce ethanol.

The Scientific American writes

And the resources devoted to growing corn are increasing dramatically. Between 2006 and 2011, the amount of cropland devoted to growing corn in America increased by more than 13 million acres, mainly in response to rising corn prices and the increasing demand for ethanol.

The DC Deep Thinkers subsidize corn ethanol, which causes additional crop acreage to be planted and thus replacing prairie land and destroying bird habitat. Now they've come up with a new program, the Northern Great Plains Joint Venture spearheaded by the USFWS, to overcome a problem which they created in the first place.

Thankfully, the current budget crisis may bring an end to this unwise subsidy. 

Congress rebuffs Trump wildfire demands, leaves logging proposals out of farm bill

The Trump administration spent months very publicly lobbying Congress for more power to conduct logging projects on national forests, something President Donald Trump and leading cabinet officials argued would help combat the catastrophic wildfires that killed more than 80 people in California this fall.
They failed.
On Tuesday, lawmakers rolled out the final text of the 2018 farm bill, a compromise between House and Senate negotiators. It does not include any of the controversial “categorical exclusions” to environmental review laws for logging projects that the administration and House Republicans had sought.
 But the legislation does include new proposals that conservationists and forestry experts hope will help the federal government and states pursue projects across the West to reduce the risk of out-of-control blazes.
There is “productive policy in there,” said Peter Nelson, Director of Federal Lands Program at Defenders of Wildlife. Nelson pointed in particular to collaborative forest management programs between the federal government, states and private landowners that the bill reauthorizes and, in some cases, expands.
That’s critical because of the patchwork of ownership in forests across the West. In California, for example, the federal government controls over half of forest land, through a mix of agencies that includes the Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation and National Park Service. Private landowners, Native American tribes and companies own another 40 percent of forest land, while state and local

agencies oversee just 3 percent...MORE

Read more here: https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/state/california/article222904450.html#storylink=cpy

That's great. They reauthorize a program that's done virtually nothing to solve the problem.  "productive policy" is a complete misnomer.  These piddly little projects accomplish nothing.

Read more here: https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/state/california/article222904450.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/state/california/article222904450.html#storylink=cpy

Farm bill deal close as negotiators await cost estimates

Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts said Wednesday that farm bill negotiators were on the cusp of a deal to resolve outstanding issues but were awaiting final cost estimates before a formal announcement could be made. “We have to put the bill together and then we have to get the scores,” Roberts told reporters, referring to a 10-year cost estimate conducted by the Congressional Budget Office. Top farm bill negotiators in the House and Senate have been at loggerheads for months over several thorny issues in the sweeping agriculture and nutrition bill, including over commodity policy and food stamps as well as conservation initiatives and topline spending numbers. Later on Wednesday, Roberts told reporters it would be premature to describe the deal as final, because “there’s still some things out there that people have to agree on.” We’re not at a place where I can say that there’s full agreement," he added. Lawmakers have kept a tight lid on how they thread the needle on the bill's nutrition title — the highest-profile policy fight between the two chambers during farm bill negotiations. But the final deal is not expected to include stricter work requirements for millions of recipients of food stamps, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. That controversial proposal was included in the House farm bill but has long been considered politically unworkable in the Senate. Farm bill insiders said negotiators likely agreed to tinker around the edges of SNAP policy, avoiding any major cuts to the $70-billion-per-year program, which helps more than 40 million Americans buy groceries each month...MORE

Cotton growers vs. urban farmers: Bitter partisan fight threatens farm bill

Mounting tensions between two of the lead negotiators on the farm bill are jeopardizing Congress’ chances of passing a measure allocating hundreds of billions of dollars for agriculture and nutrition programs before a new session begins next year. Texas Republican Mike Conaway, the House Agriculture chairman, wants more money for Southern cotton growers. Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow, Senate Agriculture’s ranking member, is pushing funds for urban farming and renewable energy. Their bitter fights over farm subsidies have deadlocked talks in a conference committee. The 2014 farm bill expired on Oct. 1 without a single face-to-face negotiating session between top negotiators in the three days before the deadline -- a sign of just how far lawmakers are from any kind of deal. Congress is supposed to reauthorize the sweeping law every five years, but the stalled negotiations show how rancorous partisanship in Washington has overtaken even popular legislation that usually passes with bipartisan support. Rural lawmakers must now return home for midterm elections with little to show their farmer constituents who are hurting from low commodity prices and an onslaught of retaliatory tariffs. If a bill doesn’t pass by the end of the year, lawmakers would likely extend the current farm bill and then need to return to square one on new legislation next year...MORE

Congress allows farm bill to lapse before reauthorization deadline

Congress quietly allowed the farm bill to expire over the weekend despite House Republicans’ hopes they would come to a consensus and pass a reauthorization ahead of the Sept. 30 deadline. The expiration was blamed on discrepancies between the House and the Senate, as well as the parties over key provisions, including most prominently over a House provision to attach work requirements to the food stamp benefits in the current Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Democrats blasted the welfare reform language, arguing the Senate-passed version did not include the changes, while saying the requirements could be detrimental to the safety net relied upon by low-income earners — a criticism Republicans have rebuffed. While there was talk of a short-term extension, a stop-gap measure ultimately was not brought to the floor before the lower chamber recessed ahead of the midterm elections. A number of top negotiators — including Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D- Mich.) and Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) — have argued Congress’ real deadline isn’t until December as the majority of baseline programs remain funded until later this year...MORE

Food stamp work requirement may doom the Farm bill

Before the current farm bill expires on September 30, House and Senate conferees will sit down and try to put the finishing touches on a new, thousand-page bill that speaks to all aspects of the nation’s agriculture policy, from farm subsidies to crop insurance to conservation programs. But the legislation, now nearly four years in the making, could be derailed by work requirements in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—also known as the food-stamp program—some of which food and nutrition experts have described as an “assault” on poor families. If they get their way, House Republicans would impose stricter work requirements on SNAP recipients than the program has ever seen. Their version of the farm bill dramatically increases the need to work, requiring almost anyone receiving SNAP benefits, including people with children above the age of 6 and all “able-bodied” adults under the age of 60, to work or participate in job training for at least 20 hours a week. Failure to do so (or failure to report to work- or job-training hours) just once, and they’d lose benefits for a full year. Two strikes, and the penalty increases to three years of lost benefits unless they comply with the requirements or receive an exemption...MORE

House approves five-year farm bill

The House narrowly approved a five-year farm bill on Thursday that would impose new work requirements on people who receive food stamps. The legislation initially failed after conservatives demanded a vote on a conservative-backed immigration bill in exchange for their support last month. But the House was able to push the bill forward on Thursday in a 213-211 vote. The vote came the same day the House decided to postpone the vote on a compromise immigration bill and rejected another, more hardline immigration bill introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.). Passing the farm bill was a top priority for Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who argued the work requirements would help people move up the economic ladder. The bill authorizes a number of farm, agricultural and food programs that are set to expire at the end of September. Most Democrats opposed the farm bill over the new work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps...MORE

Senate Agriculture Committee passes farm bill with additional wins for young farmers

The National Young Farmers Coalition (NYFC) celebrated additional policy wins on June 13, as the Senate Agriculture Committee completed its mark up of the 2018 Farm Bill with a unanimous vote. Before sending the bill to the floor for consideration by the full Senate, the Committee adopted amendments to add additional proposals for young and beginning farmers and ranchers.
• Amendment offered by Senators Casey (D-PA) and Ernst (R-IA) to increase funding set-asides for beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers in working lands conservation programs.
 • Amendment offered by Senator Leahy (D-VT) to strengthen farmland conservation easements that keep farmers on the land.
 • Amendment offered by Senator Klobuchar (D-MN) to improve the Transition Incentives Program (CRP-TIP) to facilitate the transfer of farmland between retiring landowners and beginning, socially disadvantaged, and veteran farmers and ranchers.
 • Amendment offered by Senator Bennet (D-CO) to create a “micro-EQIP” pilot program to improve access to EQIP for young and small-scale farmers and ranchers...MORE

If you are a socially disadvantaged beginning farmer you should make out like a bandit.

It's a full-blown partisan farm food fight

...In late May, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution including this last line: Action on the farm bill "may continue to be postponed through the legislative day of Friday, June 22." To some, that means a new vote on H.R. 2; to others, it's an escape clause. House Ag Committee Chairman Mike Conaway, R-Texas, and GOP leadership may make a second attempt to pass its original version, pending enough votes to override Democratic opposition. On the Senate side, Ag Committee Chair Pat Roberts, R-Kan., expected a bipartisan bill to go to the Senate floor as soon as June 12 — one that won't attempt welfare reform. Then there's a third factor: President Donald Trump has vowed to veto any farm bill that doesn't include stricter work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The House version would double SNAP benefits when buying fruits and vegetables, but could reduce stipends or eliminate them to 2-million Americans below the poverty line. That's where the standoff currently stands. Roberts, speaking at a farm bill public forum along with Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., and U.S. Ag Secretary Sonny Perdue, in Manhattan, Kan., said he personally has no problem with the House bill, which includes stricter rules requiring "able-bodied" SNAP recipients to either work 20 hours a week or be engaged in training for work. He hopes the House gets to work and passes it, "and we can get down to the hard work of hashing out a final bill to go to the president for his signature before Sept. 30." However, Roberts stressed, the Senate needs 60 votes to pass a bill and changing the rules for SNAP in the interest of welfare reform won't pass... The House version rolls the Conservation Stewardship Program into the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, according to Andrew Walmsley, director of congressional relations for American Farm Bureau Federation. Caps or limits based on farm size and ownership were defeated on the floor or in the House Rules Committee, he added. He presumed they wouldn't be back when the bill returns to the floor. As previously reported, key bipartisan Senate leaders adamantly oppose letting CSP expire. Among 13 points outlined in previous reporting is a proposed increase in CSP incentives for cover crops and intensive rotational grazing...MORE

Farm group questions NRCS-Ducks Unlimited relationship

A group representing North Dakota wheat and barley farmers is raising questions about the working relationship between the federal government's main conservation agency and a private group that works to boost wetlands and waterfowl. The North Dakota Grain Growers Association says the government's Natural Resources Conservation Service should not be using nonprofit Ducks Unlimited personnel "as foot soldiers for its work." The Grain Growers fears such a relationship might infringe on farmers' ability to use their land as they see fit, and hurt them financially. The NRCS works with landowners to conserve, maintain and improve natural resources and ensure landowners are complying with regulations. Producers who don't comply could lose eligibility to participate in federal farm programs. Grain Growers Executive Director Dan Wogsland said the association recently found out that NRCS was using Ducks Unlimited members to help with the agency's work. "Ducks Unlimited will have undue influence on programs that impact North Dakota farmers and landowners," Wogsland said...more

Conservationists claim victory on new farm bill

Wildlife and environmental groups are claiming victory for conservation practices in the new farm bill, where two of their top priorities made it into law. Farmers will be required to use good conservation practices on highly erodible lands and protect wetlands to qualify for crop insurance subsidies. And the law requires “sodsaver” protections to discourage farmers from plowing up native grasslands in several Plains and Midwest states. “I think we’re going to get a quite a lot of bang for the buck on conservation compliance and sodsaver,” said Bill Wenzel, agriculture program director for the Izaak Walton League of America. It wasn’t a total victory. The $57.6 billion in the farm bill for conservation programs over the next 10 years is a net reduction of $4 billion. Sodsaver will apply to only six states — North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana and Nebraska — instead of nationwide. And the cap on acres in the Conservation Reserve Program, which pays farmers to take environmentally sensitive land out of production, was lowered from 32 million to 24 million. Conservationists say, though, they expect a limited impact from the lowered cap. It’s only slightly below last year’s total acres in the program, as enrollment has fallen because of higher crop prices...more

$1 Trillion Farm Bill Full of Subsidies, Special Favors

President Obama was in Michigan last week to sign a 10-year, $1 trillion farm bill. While much of the debate has centered around the spending on food stamps, buried in the 1,000-page plan are many other provisions that are indefensibly bad policy. While some are praising, and others complaining, about slightly rolling back spending on food stamps and eliminating some of the direct payments to "farmers" (who did not actually farm), the bill goes far beyond that. This bill continues special subsidy deals to farmers in every area in the country — from corn and beans to rice and peanuts to sugar and catfish. The farm bill also pays 62 percent of the premiums for crop insurance costing billions annually. The program is administered through 18 private companies. According to The New York Times, "Crop insurers scored a major victory from a provision in the bill that bars the Agriculture Department from renegotiating lesser payments to those companies over the … life of the bill. In previous years, the Agriculture Department's renegotiations with insurance companies have resulted in billions of dollars in savings for the government." While the Congressional Budget Office said the bill will reduce federal spending by $16.6 billion, the R Street Institute, a free market think tank with its headquarters in Washington, D.C., said only $8.6 billion of that comes from trimming farm subsidies. Comparably, the 2014 White House budget wanted $37.8 billion in net cuts to farm subsidies. So the GOP, which provided most of the votes on this bill, soon will be campaigning on fiscal prudence, but could not manage to cut less than the president. "The Obama administration is not exactly known for austere budgets, so the fact that the White House would cut $29.2 billion more in wasteful agriculture spending than the farm bill Congress approved underscores just how terrible this legislation is," said R Street Senior Fellow Andrew Moylan, in a press release. The Economist noted that the bill is a 50 percent increase in spending over the 2008 law, with 80 percent going to spending that has nothing to do with farming. The median farm household income is 25 percent higher than the national average and 75 percent of the subsidies in the bill go to the largest 10 percent of farm businesses. In practical terms, this means the rest of society is subsidizing wealthy agriculture companies...more

House-Passed 'Compromise' Farm Bill to Cost $1.4 Billion a Page

Today's passage of the new "compromise" farm bill by the U.S. House of Representatives has some interesting quirks to it. The bill will cost nearly a trillion dollars over ten years. But, considering the bill itself is 702 pages long, the bill will cost about $1.4 billion per page. If that doesn't garner the attention of taxpayers, there was something else that bothered at least one member of the House today - how settling on cutting $8 billion of waste could be a called "compromise" between a $40 billion House cut and a $4 billion Senate cut. U.S. Congressman Paul Broun, (R-Georgia) said, "While the House-passed version of this bill eliminated $40 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse in the food stamp program and the Senate-passed version cut $4 billion - only in Washington would the compromise be an $8 billion cut."…more

Meat groups 'actively oppose' farm bill

U.S. livestock and poultry industries say they'll oppose the farm bill that does not reach a resolve to their liking for GIPSA funding and making mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) compliant under the World Trade Organization. In a letter to the four farm bill principals, the American Meat Institute, National Catttleman’s Beef Assn., National Chicken Council, National Pork Producers Council, National Turkey Federation, and the North American Meat Assn, said since a sensible resolution was not achieved for the GIPSA and MCOOL issues, "we will actively oppose final passage of the Farm Bill, if these issues are not addressed." The letter detailed the groups were deeply disappointed the bill does not exclude language that was in the House-passed version of the bill on the Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Act (GIPSA), the Conaway-Costa amendment. If included, the Conaway-Costa amendment would have refocused the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s regulation on the five specific areas of contraction, as Congress directed in the 2008 Farm Bill, the letter explained. As well as restoring Congressional intent, this language was included in four appropriations bill (including 2014) and signed by the President. Groups also faced disappointment that a WTO-compliant resolution to mandatory Country-of-Origin Labelling (COOL) was not reached, particularly in the face of retaliatory actions by the governments of Mexico and Canada. "This retaliation will be crippling to our industries and threaten the long-term relationship with two of our most important export markets," the letter stated. "COOL is a broken program that has only added costs to our industries without any measurable benefit for America’s livestock producers." They added they "offered many solutions and all were rejected."...more

Farm Bill: Money for Nothin'…

by Daren Bakst

The four principal farm bill negotiators have tentatively agreed on a framework for a new farm bill. A central aspect of this framework would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad.

The House and Senate farm bills both eliminate a program called direct payments because it pays farmers who don’t even plant a single seed. In other words, farmers get money for nothing.

Now, the negotiators are replacing the direct payments program with new programs that would also pay farmers for doing nothing.

This is how it works: Under direct payments, farmers don’t get paid for what they actually plant, but instead get paid for what are called “base acres.” As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) explains, “base acres” are:

a measure of a farm’s crop production history based on the number of acres planted on the farm during certain past years. The term base acres refers to a farm’s average planted acreage of specific crops during those years; the term does not refer to specific physical acres on that farm.

Payment is therefore based on the historical production of a crop, not on what is actually planted. This has led to serious waste. According to GAO:

Cumulatively, almost one-fourth of the total value of direct payments made during this period [2003-2011] went to producers who did not, in a given year, grow any of the crop associated with their base acres—as they are allowed to do.

The payments may have been easy money for some farmers, but nothing is free: A total of $10.6 billion in taxpayer dollars was doled out for nothing. There were even some recipients who received direct payments even though their land was “fallow” (i.e. they had not grown any crops on their land for the most recent five years).

To come back with new programs using this same base acre approach is absurd and an insult to taxpayers. We can look forward to farmers continuing to get paid for nothing.

Representative Collin Peterson (D-MN), one of the four principal negotiators, isn’t happy about this approach. According to Politico Pro:

Peterson said he has resigned himself to the fact that the subsidies will be paid out on base acre calculations, but he expressed concern over the language because it means farmers could continue getting subsidies for crops they did not plant on any given year…
“I think it’s a really bad idea because we’re paying people that aren’t doing anything,” he said. He added: “It is what it is. You can only fight so many fights.”

Presumably, proponents will claim that the alternative is to base subsidies on actual planting decisions, not historical averages. Such a practice is more likely to distort planting decisions. This may be true, but it only shows that both approaches are flawed.

As is usual, Congress presumes that getting rid of one program means another program has to take its place. Farmers have far too many subsidies as it is. Direct payments shouldn’t be replaced, and Americans shouldn’t be forced to hand over money for nothing.

Heritage

Farm bill provision includes effort to return family cemetery

The Rev. Jim Mullins wants to be buried in his family's cemetery. The problem is, right now that cemetery, the Mullins-Sturgill Cemetery in Pound, Va., is on federal land in the Thomas Jefferson National Forest, and Mullins, a Korean War veteran, wants the security that comes with knowing he’ll be laid to rest on family land. An inclusion to the federal farm bill would convey the seven-tenths of an acre and the access road from the U.S. Forest Service to Mullins and the Sturgill Cemetery Association. U.S. Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-9th, introduced the bill earlier this year and it was added to the farm bill. The family has had access to the land and paid a yearly fee to keep a special-use permit for the land, but Mullins and other family members want to own the land free and clear. U.S. Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, both Democrats, have added their signatures, along with Griffith's, to a letter asking members of the Senate and House committees on agriculture to consider adding the conveyance to the farm bill conference report. The letter was sent last week. The farm bill conference committee met for the first time at the end of October and is working to stitch together a bill to put on the president's desk by the end of the year. The cemetery is on the edge of the forest, off of state Route 671, said JoBeth Brown, public affairs specialist for the George Washington & Thomas Jefferson national forests. It was transferred to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service in 1983, she said, when it acquired more than 5,000 acres from the Army Corps of Engineers. The historic cemetery was inadvertently included in public land when the Pound Dam was built in the 1960s, according to the letter. "It's important for us to get this done because first of all, it should never have been given to the government," Mullins said, adding that the Forest Service hasn't kept up the property. "And we don't want to be buried on government land. The thing is, it's family." Under the bill drafted by Griffith, the cemetery association would pay a fair market value for the land, as determined by an appraisal approved by the secretary of agriculture and paid for by the association. Proceeds would be deposited into the federal treasury...more

The Sugar Program is Central Planning

By CHRIS EDWARDS

SHARE

House and Senate negotiators are working out details of a big farm bill that may pass this year. No industry in America is as coddled as farming, and no industry is as centrally planned from Washington. The federal sugar program is perhaps the most Soviet of all. Here’s a sketch of the sugar program, which the supposedly conservative, tea party-dominated lower chamber may soon ratify:

• Purpose. The federal sugar program is designed to enrich sugar producers, such as the wealthy Fanjuls, and rip off sugar consumers by keeping domestic prices artificially high. In recent decades, U.S. sugar prices have often been two or more times world prices. The federal government achieves that result by price guarantees, trade restrictions, production quotas, and ethanol giveaways.
• Guaranteed Prices. The Department of Agriculture runs a complex loan program to support sugar prices. Essentially, the government promises to buy sugar from processors at a set price per pound. Processors can sell to the government, or they can sell in the marketplace if the (manipulated) market price is higher.
• Trade Restrictions. Complex import barriers called “tariff rate quotas” help to maintain high domestic sugar prices. Imports are restricted to about one quarter of the U.S. market, and each foreign country (except Mexico) is allocated a particular share of imports.
• Production Quotas. The government imposes quotas, or “marketing allotments,” on U.S. producers. The United States Department of Agriculture decides what total U.S. sugar production ought to be and then allots quotas to beet and cane sugar producers. Most sugar beet production is in Minnesota, Idaho, North Dakota, Michigan, and California. Most sugar cane production is in Florida and Louisiana.
• Ethanol Giveaway. If prices fall below certain levels, the USDA is required to fire up a sugar-for-ethanol program to channel sugar away from the food industry.

The USDA is supposed to run the sugar program at no taxpayer cost, which makes the central planning even trickier. The agency must fiddle to adjust imports, quotas, and the ethanol giveaway to optimally fatten the wallets of sugar producers, while not allowing the domestic (manipulated) market price to fall so low as to impose taxpayer costs.

A possible wrench in the works of the current farm bill is that the sugar program is on track to cost taxpayers perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars this year (see here and here). So if conservatives in Congress vote for an unreformed sugar program this year, they would be not only voting for central planning, corporate welfare, higher consumer prices, harm to U.S. food manufacturers, and environmental damage, they would be voting for higher taxes as well.

The Congressional Research Service gives a brief overview of the central planning here. You can see that sugar beets are allotted exactly 54.35 percent of production (definitely not 54.34 or 54.36), and that federal planners have decreed that the just price (“loan rate”) for sugar cane is 18.75 cents per pound (not 18.74 or 18.76). 

The USDA has more on the program here. This table shows that the Fanjuls’ Florida Crystals company received a quota in 2013 of exactly 910,521 tons. So 910,521 is certainly too little and 910,522 is absolutely too much. Now if only the planners at HHS had used such precision in designing the Obamacare website! 

For more on the sugar racket, see here and here.

CATO