Debate Desk
Do Farm Subsidies Really Help Family Farmers, or Do Conservatives Disagree?
Farm programs flow mostly to large operations and raise land prices; some conservatives defend a safety net for farmers and others favor ending the subsidies.
The claim
Defenders say that farming is risky, with weather, prices and global markets beyond a farmer's control, that a stable food supply is a matter of national security and that crop insurance and price supports keep family farms alive.
The answer in three points
- Farming is risky, and a safety net has a long history. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 began federal price supports in the Depression, and the programs have grown since. Food security matters to the country.
- Subsidies tend to go to the largest operations, since payments are tied to production, and they get capitalized into land prices, which raises costs for new farmers. Programs like the sugar program make every family pay more for food so a few growers earn more.
- Conservatives disagree. Some argue for a limited insurance-based safety net and against price supports, while others argue that without them, family farms would fall to larger competitors and food production would move abroad. A reform that caps payments per farm and focuses on insurance has support in both camps.
A reform that most conservatives could support starts with limits on how much any one operation can collect, shifts help toward insurance against disasters, and ends the programs that raise consumer prices for the benefit of a few. Family farmers benefit when the rules stop rewarding size.
The numbers
- The Agricultural Adjustment Act was enacted in 1933, according to the National Archives.
- The Congressional Budget Office reported that spending on farm programs and crop insurance is tens of billions of dollars a year, according to its baseline projections.
- The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that a small share of farms account for most of the value of production, according to its Census of Agriculture.
What they will say next
"Without subsidies, food prices would spike." In several countries with few subsidies, farming has remained productive. New Zealand ended most farm subsidies in the 1980s and its agriculture has prospered.
"Foreign governments subsidize their farmers." Many do, which is a reason to bargain for fair trade, and it is not a reason to match them everywhere.
"Small farms need help." Payment limits and a focus on insurance and conservation can aim help at those who need it.
"It is a matter of national security." Food supply is a security matter, and the supply of the main crops is not in doubt.
The question is not whether to support farmers, but how.
"Crop insurance is a subsidy too." It is, and many conservatives accept a well-run insurance program for real disasters while objecting to payments that guarantee profit. The difference is between sharing a risk and removing it. A program that pays when weather or markets destroy a crop does a different job than one that pays regardless of the harvest, and the first is easier to defend.