Barnaby is alerting Congress and policy makers of the danger of adopting the EWG proposal. He says if the larger farms using crop insurance were to be removed from the policy premium pool, they are taking out the 20% of farms that produce 80% of the food. As a result, Barnaby says the result will be the opposite of what EWG wants, “Many farmers will cut their crop insurance coverage level to remain under the subsidy limit. This will cause more large farms to move to CAT coverage, especially with the reduction in CAT rates that the Senate Bill requires. This effectively is the same policy as providing the bottom half of coverage free and pay full premium for coverage above 50%.”
But so much for the thoughts expressed here…what is your opinion? Cast your vote and tell everyone why in the comment box below. Submissions are subject to prior approval before being published, but every reasonable comment will likely be approved.
Crop insurance is under attack by the same group that released names of recipients of farm program payments, and fought for the elimination of direct payments. The Environmental Working Group is lobbying to identify the names of all farmers who use crop insurance and indicate the amount of the total premium subsidy. The group also wants to cap subsidies at $40,000 which would be a medium sized grain farm, but could vary widely depending on crop, state, and coverage level, as well as year. Such action could force farmers to abandon the buy-up insurance, rely upon CAT coverage, and end up being a larger expense to the USDA in times of crop failure.
Source: FarmGate blog