# Ag disaster



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Just wondering if all you budget consious conservatives are in favor of Dorgan and Conrad's amendment to put $4.5 billion into farm disaster aid to help ND farmers?


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Being the conservative that I am, yup, if it is the right thing to do!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Just wondering if all you budget consious conservatives are in favor of Dorgan and Conrad's amendment to put $4.5 billion into farm disaster aid to help ND farmers?


If the farmers have already been paid through crop insurance I am against it. If they have not been paid I can see some, but they often get bailed out while no other business does. There is nothing sacred about farming as compared to a gas station, grocery store, hardware store, or any other business. I doubt any of them will get a disaster payment if they are in the red after Christmas. 
Someone please explain to me why farming is considered cherished above all else? I see people and businesses as equal. Is there something wrong with that?
I know some people see this as benefiting all of North Dakota, and that's ok, as long as we are not a burden to taxpayers of America. As long as we are still a plus for America, and not a minus. We already take in two to four times the federal taxes that we pay out. I'm not proud of that.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Ken I talked with a good number of farmers this fall across the central and south east part of the state. Some really did suffer great loss both from drought and also hail. Yet others are licking their lips with the prices and the production levels they got.

I am not opposed to aid for those affected, but the current push by these two is a give away for any and all farmers to some degree. Conrad in particular is pushing this because he believes that we tax payers who also had increased costs to our businesses and household should be paying the fuel bill for the farmers. Note he did not get fuel assistance for farmers last either.

I am truly disappointed that the Rep took the chicken way out on spending bills, dumping them on the next Congress. I wish they would have went in and acted like Conservatives and passed the bills without all the pork in earmarks and things like Dorgan and Conrad are pushing!

In either todays Forum or yesterdays paper, there was an article about the profits many farmers in the eastern portion of the state are looking at. For many it will be the third most profitable year in the last 20. With so many having up years and really came through unscathed from the dry conditions and other weather related issues, it makes it very hard to take what these two are saying as being anything other than pork!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Some good points Ron. Something to consider from a PR perspective. If the general public knows John Q farmer made a killing this summer, then also find out he received disaster payments it may cause some backlash against all farmers. I say help those that really need it, but not the others.
As an example: Back in the early 1970's I worked with a fellow who also farmed. Stutsman county was hit with a very bad hail storm. If I remember all they received that year was interest free loans for their operations the next spring. This guys land was not touched, but he was able to barrow $92,000 put it in savings, and draw it out to pay off the loan the next year. He made a few thousand in interest off Uncle Sam. His fellow employees were down on farmers after that. He may have made a few bucks, but he hurt farmer support. It wouldn't have been so bad if he hadn't thought those he worked with were stupid, while at the same time thinking he was the smooth operator.


----------



## dieseldog (Aug 9, 2004)

Plainsman cheap food is why!!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Absolutely Not!! I'm a farmer and the crop insurance program is way out of control already. If these guys did not take out insurance is that our fault? If they went out and rented a bunch of land and bought a bunch of new fancy machinery is that our fault? This is getting ridiculous you collect 60 grand from hail insurance then the government gives you another 30 grand for disaster it time for this to stop. Most of thes guys have already collected a nice check from crop ins. As one my buddies told me last summer, my crop is all shot and he laughed I collected from crop insurance now I can't wait for Byron to pay out.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Dieseldog

You may be right. I would rather pay farmers support prices and keep them on the farm than have them go broke and pay corporations twice as much. On the other hand if I have to pay for CRP, pay through taxes for crop insurance, pay for disasters, and pay to hunt I may be willing to say let the corporations have it.

On the other hand cheap food doesn't ring true. I can get grain cheaper from Canada, beef cheaper from Australia and South America, and produce cheaper from Mexico and South America. With all these cheaper foods, can cheap food be the answer? I could be mistaken, but there must be another answer.

I do have a problem that I need help with. I want to support agriculture, but I don't want to be a sucker. Where is the line here?


----------



## dieseldog (Aug 9, 2004)

i agree it is a fine line and i am not sure what the right answer is. Do you feel safer eating american beef or cheaper beef imported from some third world country? I agree that alot of farmers are taking advantage of the system. I just don't agree that alot of these guys are getting huge crop ins checks. I guess they probably are if the have been farming long enough and have big proven yields. I have been farming for only 4 years and my proven yields are county average. I got hailed out on 350 acres of durum this year and all crop ins covered was my premium on my farm plus a check for $216. Now if i had big proven yields i guess maybe i would have gotten a good payoff. I would gladly give up gov payments if we could set our own prices for our products but like you stated their is enough other countries that are ready to undercut us. If you think our subsidies are high look into what Europe pays their farmers. I am not sure on numbers but i think it is something like $200 acre. I hope we can agree to disagree on some things. I also agree that pork is pork and there are plenty of people at the trough that don't need to be.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

pork is pork and we all need to be weaned off it.

Farmers need to be taken off the dole over several years time so they can make the decisions they need to make to adapt with less pain.

The govt should not be involved in farming or any other business and should let the market decide who grows what when.

Insurance should be private not taxpayer funded.

Get the govt inefficeincies out of the market and food costs will go down.

Realize most people don't know foods true cost because of the tangled web of deceit our govt has created.

the cost of government is crushing our economy to benefit politicians.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Diesel Dog, You took out insurance and got paid. Had you known how to play the proven yield game you would have gotten more. Do you feel you deserve a disaster check also?


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

G/O, you know that a hail policy and federal crop insurance payments are not related. That is not a good anology. Can someone explain to me how you can have a good crop and still collect disaster payments? How does this work? What is the proven yield game? If this is something that is illegal then I agree that the auditing procedures definitely need to be tightened.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

I find it interesting that somewhere in North Dakota there is some disaster every year (and the disaster payments). I grew up on a farm in southern Minnesota, and the attitude of my parents was that there will be a "disaster" (crop failure) at least 1 year out of every 4 so any financial or crop planning assumed that this would be the case. Other than hail insurance, any other disaster like drought, flooding, disease or insects was assumed and we assumed we would not get any help (and didn't). We made sure we had enough to get through that one of every four years of failure without assistance. 
Secondly, look at where and what we are farming in North Dakota. Look at the expansion of corn, soybeans or other crops in this state that are now being grown in areas they never were meant to be grown considering our average rainfall and growing season. Granted, new varieties play some part in this, but it still makes no sense to be growing some crops in areas where you have a high likelihood to fail and then assume that the government or insurance will bail you out. 
Finally, in our township, out of 20 or so farmers, at least 4 have not taken any government money and they are still making a living at it. Not a good living to be sure.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I agree with all of you.This is "pork."Especially Plainsman's statement that the gov't doesn't bail out the rest of us.This is one time when I hope Bush vetoes any bill like this.


----------



## dieseldog (Aug 9, 2004)

G/O there was no proven yield game to play for me I am a beginning farmer and they tell me what my yield is. Also as the disaster program states if a farfmer has losses over 30% of their average yield they may receive a disaster payment so yes I feel that I should maybe get a little bit of a payment on those acres that were lost. My main point in my above post was to show what a crock that crop ins really is. It took my to get hailed out on 20% of my total acres just to get my premium back. That is not much protection if you ask me.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

DJ, All of this is complicated but I will try. First of all in the past if a neighboring county had a disaster you were included. So you had a hail loss on beans, and you still harvested the beans. Now they come with a disaster program so the beans you harvested only did 8 bushel an acre they give you disaster on the balance. Seem fair to you? The proven yield game. Your federal crop is based on your proven yield or if you haven't got one county average. Lets say where you are located the county average is 80 bu. per acre. With the cost of insurance hardly worth taking insurance on these acres. So what you do is establish a yield. Ever notice what I like to call food plots in a wheat field. A few acres of corn planted in a wheat field. He is establishing a base and yield, it doesn't matter if that only goes 90 bu per acre when it gets to the elevator it will do at least 150 he will get some from the neighbor on his way. Now he gets his yield up so his land is paying out like a slot machine. Then he gets to play the preventive planting game. All those sloughs being burned and worked under are for a reason. Next spring when its to wet, well they attempted to plant them to corn but could not. Well let see you have 120 bushel average on your corn and 35 acres of slough you could not plant because its to wet. Caching and you cash in some more. It goes on and on. If you do for some reason get a total failure Byron and Kent will step in and write you another check.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Now G/O does a good job of explaining it in a simple way, but the biggest issue with the current proposal is the across the board payment that they are not talking about. Diesel if a loss has occurred, I am not opposed to some aid, however, when record profits or best profits in 20 years or more are being touted, those people do not need a handout.

That has been the real kicker on this bill and why it has remained stalled!

Hawaii sugar farmer had one of the best seasons on record and had a great year last year also, but in this disaster bill is payments to them. I cannot for the life of me understand why people think others are opposed to farmers when it is clear that much of the program is pork spending and not aid to drought or disaster losses.

Oh G/O you forgot to mention how land in one county that is not in the disaster area has an exceptional rate of yield because of the good farming practices, but fields in the disaster counties saw that same farmer produce 50% less than his neighbor did on the same land!!!!!!!

One of the farmers back home made the comment this summer that you are not trying if you are not cheating!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

My favorite was when they tried to tack on the Katrina bill a fuel assistance for farmers. They wanted to give them help because of the high prices for fuel. What about the guy who drives 40 miles to work? Or worse yet the over the road trucker? Busch vetoede that also and Byron and Kent were mad as hell.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

If a farmer has 8 bushel beans he will have a multiperil loss without the disaster declaration as long as his APH is high enough. If a farmer is shuffling his production from field to field this is fraud and is an accountablility problem within the farm program and not a result of the farm program but a result of dishonest farmers and the adjuster who signs the papers. If a farmer is declaring prevented plant on acres he has no intention of farming then this is also fraud. These people should be held accountable for their actions. Sounds like it is an enforcement issue of existing laws and not a bad farm program. I'm not sure I would consider this to be "pork!" The federal crop insurance program can work if people will work within its framework. Money makes dishonest people do dishonest things and then rationalize why they should be dishonest because everyone is doing it. So most of these problems are a result of dishonesty and accountiblity and not because farmers need some kind of insurance that they will still be in existance because of things over which they have no control. If we were to take away all the monies that North Dakota farmers have gotten over the last 20 years due to disaster(federal insurance payments) how many farmers due you think we would have left?? Free markets sound great but what is the reality of that scenario?? Instead of a free market survival of the fittest mentality I think that if we could clean up the existing program it would be a better match for farmers all across the USA and base it on need and not dishonesty.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

OK DJ here is another example which I love. A young farmer in our area wants to run with the big dogs but still pees like a puppy. He goes and bids up a bunch of land and ends up renting it. If it would not rain all spring then he could get everything seeded. But it starts raining and he doesn't get 1200 acres seeded but everything around him is. This is not low ground but mostly high ground. But because he bit off more than he could chew and knew how to play the games he recieved $110.00 an acre for preventive planting. Come on now DJ we are rewarding people for this? Plus the guy got $60,000.00 in disater that year, and everyone has a bumper crop.


----------



## dieseldog (Aug 9, 2004)

G/O I agree that those things shouldn't happen. Crop ins and FSA are actually supposed to look at your agricultural practices and see if you are doing things the way you should. ALso if prevent plant is not a widespread event they are supposed to be able to deny benefits. If all your neighbors got planted and you didn't you are supposed to SOL.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

How does this qualify for prevented plant? I do not believe this is an insurable cause of loss. Who is signing this off as prevented plant? Here again this is fraud and abuse of the system and should not negate the fact that there are legitimate reasons for the prevented plant provision of the federal crop insurance program.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

DJ, as long as there is intent then its preventive. He intended to plant it just got to wet on him. Same goes for all the slough burning this fall. You got to admit it looks as if we are in Baghdad some days. By burning and discing they have proven intent. Next spring when it fills with water it does not matter they will collect as the farmers say the old PP. Don't get me wrong DJ because its there don't use it. If you qualify take every dollar you can because that will be the only way you will be able to compete now days. As long as the federal government is involved with crop ins this will continue. In fact the agents now encourage many of these things. If private industry were in charge of this it would be a whole different scenario. Like I say with a liberal program such as this I see no reason for disaster payments.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Prevented plant has limitations under the 20/20 rule so not every little bit of wet or burnt slough will qualify as long as there is not fraud. There were a lot of sloughs that were planted to crops last spring and there will be more this spring and they will not all end up in a prevented plant situation. Don't you have to make a pass through the slough in order to qualify as prevented plant? Does burning count as a pass? As far as it being strickly welfare, this is not the case because it is an insurance program and you don't qualify unless you have paid the premium. It is not a free ride. The government doesn't just give the farmers the money, they have to buy the insurance policy first. This program is used to manage risk. I'm sure some of the farmers just north of you in the Edgely area were happy they had federal crop along with a hail policy if in fact they did have a hail policy. If there were no federal crop insurance available with the cost of putting a crop in and maintaining it until harvest it would not have been a pretty sight for the farmers or the local economy in these areas. Natural disasters are when people need help the most, not the time when they need to be abandoned by the government. This program needs to be tweeked but a free market and no federal insurance program is not going to be a pretty sight for the farmers of North Dakota or the rest of America. This program has evolved to it's existing form out of necessity, not to waste money. If anything it needs a little accountability like most of the government programs but it should not be given the "deep six."


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> This program has evolved to it's existing form out of necessity, not to waste money. If anything it needs a little accountability like most of the government programs but it should not be given the "deep six."


I agree we need the program and I wish they would turn it over to private industry, then we would see a lot less abuse. You know as well as I do of all the abuse that is happening and I'm a little tired of it. The honest people get punished. This is why I see no use for disaster payments, we have this program in place and people better use it. If you bought a car and only carried liability and smacked a deer should the state fix your car? They own the deer,right?


----------



## dieseldog (Aug 9, 2004)

I actually had some Prevent plant in 2004 and I actually had to bring in my receipts showing how many bushels of seed I had cleaned to show how many acres i intended to plant and they also asked why I had't fertilized it yet and since I am no till I have drill that I can put all fertilizer down at planting time so I had to tell them that is why. After that I was then paid for my acres.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I came across this article and found it relevant

DJ you should consider what the implications are

Why we love government

Walter Williams

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 29, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Unlike today's Americans, the founders of our nation were suspicious, if not contemptuous, of government.

Consider just a few of their words.

*James Madison suggested that "All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree." *

Thomas Paine observed, "*We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. ... It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute." *

*John Adams *reminded, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."

*Thomas Jefferson gave us several warnings *that we've ignored:

*First,* "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

*Second*, "The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers."

*third*, "Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In response to what Jefferson called an "elective despotism," he suggested that "The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

With sentiments like these, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison became presidents. *Could a person with similar sentiments win the presidency today?*

My guess is no.

Today's Americans hold such liberty-oriented values in contempt, and any presidential aspirant holding them would have a zero chance of winning office.

Today's Americans hold a different vision of government. It's one that says Congress has the right to do just about anything upon which it can secure a majority vote. *Most of what Congress does fits the description of forcing one American to serve the purposes of another American. That description differs only in degree, but not in kind, from slavery. *

At least two-thirds of the federal budget represents forcing one American to serve the purposes of another.

Younger workers are forced to pay for the prescriptions of older Americans;
* people who are not farmers are forced to serve those who are;*

non-poor people are forced to serve poor people; and the general public is forced to serve corporations, college students and other special interests who have the ear of Congress. :******:

The supreme tragedy that will lead to our undoing is that so far as personal economic self-interests are concerned, it is perfectly rational for every American to seek to live at the expense of another American. Why? Not doing so doesn't mean he'll pay lower federal taxes. All it means is that there will be more money for somebody else. 

*In other words, once Congress establishes that one person can live at the expense of another, it pays for everyone to try to do so.*

You say, "Williams, don't you believe in helping your fellow man?" Yes, I do. I believe that reaching into one's own pockets to help his fellow man is both laudable and praiseworthy. Reaching into another's pockets to help his fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

The bottom line: We love government because it enables us to accomplish things that if done privately would lead to arrest and imprisonment. For example, if I saw a person in need, and I took your money to help him, I'd be arrested and convicted of theft. *If I get Congress to do the same thing, I am seen as compassionate.*

This vision ought to bother the Christians among us, for when God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless you got a majority vote in Congress.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

You are right Bob, I believe in the farm program because I am from North Dakota. You can cut and paste until you are blue in the face and you will not change my thinking.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

You believe in the farm program because you are a socialist, it has nothing to do with where you live.


----------

