$300,000.00 agri- instability welfare to the rich cheques.

[riders2010]

Spoke with a guy from area an hour west of us the otherday and from what he calls reliable sources 2 different 4000 acre farmers recieved 300,000.00 and more this year from agri-instability. He farms about 10 miles east of these guys and his farm pretty much lost last 3 crops plus the 2005 and 2006 disasters as well and has recieved 0 dollars like we have. Those farmers recieving the 300,000.00 are calling from Umah USA while on vacation and took over land that he could no longer afford to rent after they bid the price up. He's out working and they are sitting on their ass in the sun. All because of why? They had 5 good years missed the heavy rain etc so good margin and this year not even a major loss but getting 300,000.00 cheques.

Yep welfare for the rich, good thing they mail the cheques from Melville and not Winnipeg! because that makes such a big difference to the program doesn't it?

[farmaholic]

The fault does not lie with the producers receiving the cheques, it is a design flaw with the program. The program is not designed to cover long term margin declines. It truly is dysfunctional and unfair, no arguments from me.

[riders2010]

I agree with you totally no problem with those receiving the money except to say, those that are fighting us guys to not change it. No doubt they don't want it changed.

If this was to happen to any other industry any other grouping of people there would be such a mass uproar, so why are those of you sitting there with nothing from this program letting this go on, I don't get it! Are some not aware of the huge payouts and who is getting it. $300,000 would have paid alot of premium that crap-insurance is now gonna charge for too wet acres and that is just one farm's payout.

I wonder what the bigger cheque amounts are?

[Burbert]

This is probably more Comedian bullsh*t,
cousin I heared that the big boys/girls
won't take corporate welfare cheques, let
alone, cash them. Besides sucha payout
wouldn't even pay their fert and chem
bills, cousin theys obviously modern 0
tillers, claimin that much loss!!!

[ajl]

Pretty much the norm here for some time.
We have to get rid of agristability
because it does more harm than good. The
only fair program is no program. It is
easier to make gravity work upwards than
design a farm program with no unintended
consequences.

[grrrr]

I agree ajl. As soon as you get government involved , things get distorted. I say get rid of all goverment programs. If you want coverage, use crop insurance.

[sumdumguy]

The problem is that these programs run year after
year and claimants learn the ropes. There should
be forensic audits.

[tipsy]

Agri-instability as been a complete failure for our farm and we left the program 3 years ago.
I can't believe after all these years with this useless program that the powers to be can't figue it out. This program since its incepetion has been in a serious need of an overhaul.

[bgmb]

I think if you talked to the policy guys and they were honest with you they would tell you this;

1) no program is perfect

2) Agri stability is designed to help good farmers (farmers that make money most of the time and will therefore have good margins)
It is not designed to keep poor farmers in business, no different than crop insurance. If your long term averages are poor, your coverage is poor.

3) That is why they have an Olympic average, drop highest and lowest years on the 5 year average. Also margin calc is lagged 1 year (2011 won't come into play till 2013 margin calculation)

I think it is a great program even tho I have gotten very little money from it. I am happy to have the program but if they took it away for everyone that would be fine with me too.

[bgmb]

I would also argue this is one of the most fair gov risk insurance programs.

1) Coverage is based on the financial productivity of your farm (how much you generate from your variable costs)

2) premiums are based on coverage not acres so it is more accurate unlike crop insurance where a guy with 30 quarters of one crop spread across 30 miles may be paying the same per acre rate as a guy with 1 quarter.

3) it does not just blindly give money to farms based on sales (agri invest NISA) if you are worried about distortion these type of programs would be the worst.

[parsley]

Its a beautiful March morning to drop a thought
bomb:

"Good" farmers save for a rainy day. "Good"
farmers don't base their financial planning on
government handouts. And that's what Ag I&S
really amounts to.....tax dollar handouts. Crop
Insurance is already government subsidized, too.

Farmers cannot defend ag welfare by endorsing
the survival of only "good" farmers. If you do,
you are really approving support of governments
with a central planning agenda; support of
governments who pick and choose winners
through subsidy, instead of guaranteeing an even
playing field to compete.

Certainly all governments have tried to manage
agriculture. Meddle. Impose. Regulate. Choose.
Institutionalize. In Argentina, for years they taxed
agriculture. In Canada, we tax our florist and
electrician to subsidize agriculture.

Lets grow up.

Taxpayer subsidization of arbitrarily chosen
preferred income levels is the crassest of all
welfare, a political practice which the diehards
would probably defend at any level, including an
annual global tax levy presented soley to Google
for assuring them future suceess, as long as a
political donation was returned in the mail.

Any "good" farmer worth his salt will encourage
his farm organization to lobby to end all
agricultural welfare that takes money out of the
pockets of plumbers and writers and derrick
workers.

Dollar-propping certain groups at the expense of
others is what got the G20 into the deep water we
have to swim out of. Governments borrow money
to dish out to farmers. Can you morally,
financially or socially defend this practice? Have
we learned nothing?

Some farmers, indeed, have come to view their
fellow farmers as dispensible, rather like sizing up
the herd to see which cow to shoot in the fall.

Is there a growing brand of scorn and entitlement,
nurtured by unearned taxdollars, which enforces
the notion of the "good" farmer's indispensibility?

If the barn cat creeps up to the step & meows for
cream, and gets it, he returns every day, and
soon becomes pampered, lazy, and preening.
But dont forget he'll freeze cold-dead in the barn
when its forty below and the new landlord cuts the
grocery budget and exclaims, "He's fat and lazy.
Let him eat mice".

Beat me with your pen, Pars

[grrrr]

What gets me with government programs is the sense of entitlement that they create. I run a small farm by most standards. I think I do a pretty good job of it. It is clean. It is efficient. If I was to do an environmental farm plan (EFP), there isn't much that the taxpayers of the country would have to buy me that I need. I already care about the environment and I farm accordingly. I have a neighbor who has done an EFP and has applied for funding for all kinds of things that taxpayers must now help him buy These are things he should do himself. You know what? His farm is an environmental disaster!! Right now I could drive into his yard and see a dead animal of some sort, cow or pig, laying between the house and the barn. This is something for the cats and dogs to chew on all winter. I could show you the hole where he burns his garbage, anything and everything. I could show you old plastic containers of various sizes holding waste oil scattered around behind various sheds. It goes on and on. Why should taxpayers be envolved with buying this guy stuff? And now at a time when we have record farm incomes? My rant is over, for now!

[parsley]

Throwing out a suggestion: So...Cutback.
Advocate scrapping expensive environmental
plan and staff. Instead use a small % of funding
for rewarding excellence:

Replace expensive plan with local rural
municipal volunteers who yearly choose a
'environmental stewards' farm farm, judged par
excellence by peers.

Each year, a winning family would get free tickets
to one, say, Rider's game or Jet's game or
Winnipeg ballet, or musical tour. ;= )

Object:. Rewards excellence instead of
bureaucracy building.Elevates expectations of
management. Rewards initiative. Better use of
dollars. Pars

[farmaholic]

Agristability is not designed to make money but maybe keep you in business. As I said earlier, it is a flawed program because it doesn't protect you from declining margins by itself, crop insurance will supposedly help with that to some extent(what about declining personal yeild averages?). Secondly, if your in trouble, you will need to make an interim application because it is way too slow to react to the loss of margin in the year it happens. I am sure there are other problems as well.

First Tier:
There is no coverage for the first 15% margin decline. Tap into agri-invest if you have some.

Second Tier:
There is 70% coverage for the next 15%margin decline.

First and Second Tier combined:
In effect, for the first full 30% margin decline they are really only covering 35%, anything less(than 30%) of a margin decline, means less coverage(tier 1 & 2 combined). Hardly a windfall of protection in the first 30% decline.

Third Tier:
They will cover 80% of the margin decline from 70% of your margin down to 0%. This is the best coverage.

First, Second and Third Tier Combined:
If you had a complete wipe-out, with 0% of your reference margin, total coverage would be about 66.5%.

We are currently building our reference margin in these good years(yes, we have been "lucky"). 2004, the frost year, we qualified for a payment and nothing since.

It is that time of year the enrolment/fee notices came. So yes, it costs to participate in agri-stability, but they are matching agri-invest deposits 100%.

Does anyone hate this program so much that they refuse to participate? Or hate it so much that if they received a cheque they wouldn't accept it or refuse to participate in agri-invest?
What I don't like about it is having to disclose my inventory, receivables, etc., too much information.


There was another guy who seemed to know the program inside out, maybe they need to weigh in here!!

[parsley]

I personally know quite a few people who don't
"hate the program", in fact, they don't evaluate the
operability merits of the program at all, but they
refuse to participate because they feel the
principle of the program is not the direction
agriculture should be headed.

So they rejected signing up. Pars