Farmer Drought Relief

I don't know how much is routinely paid out. But this year has been a very bad one as far as drought. And if it is somehow for political points, are you saying we should not support farmers? I think a case could be made in the current political (though not environmental) climate that we should not support people who are not being successful - that if we are going to be going the Randian approach, and the "I built that" model, then this most aggressive form of capitalism justifies saying "you plants your seeds, you takes your chances". Personally, I believe more in supporting one another, but everyone knows I am a pinko hippie liberal commie.

Frankly, I don't think the most people will be influenced by this as a government payout. Don't you recall seeing people with posters and signs saying "Keep the government out of my medicare" during the debates about the ACA/Obamacare?

Not to get away from OP, but Tony you might kno wthe answer to this...   What would happen to the livestock feed if we had a short term reduction in Ethanol injection into our gas?   10% today is a lot of corn being used in production of ethanol.   I might be way off here, but have been curious on this point.  Thanks.

Some ethanol plants would go under.  Some ranchers would be able to afford feed.  The ethanol plants were built with a virtual guaranteed market because of the government mandated ethanol component of gasoline.  It would not have been a sound business to be in otherwise.  The government was trying to gain some independence from foreign oil.  It seemed like a good idea at the time.  I will google  the legislation at lunch to see which party we can blame for it.

TW

Is this coming out of certain states or just Indiana and Illinois? 

I live in southwest Iowa and we are in the drought also and you can see some crops are bad.  But, I am also hearing very good things from the people doing the harvesting and they are actually impressed with the numbers they are getting per acre.

Just curious on how they are getting their estimates.  I also hearing that those people with horse that are buying hay are going broke as the price has tripled in less than 2 months locally.

Here is a link to the vote on Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.  This is the most recent law on the subject and is responsible for the investment in ethanol plants in this country.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6

It was Democratically sponsored but had significant Republican support from corn-producing states.  It was passed by majorities that would have been able to overturn a veto.  The opposition was almost all Republican.  It was signed into law by President George W. Bush. 

TW

The article the OP linked to didn't say that the Obama administration was going to spend $50 billion.

The article instead says that the costs to the economy of the drought could be as much as $50 billion.

The pending disaster relief bill passed by the House but not yet voted on by the Senate is for only $383 million.

The Obama administration, even if it wanted to flood farmers with $50B, has no authority or ability to do so.  It has some minor ability to reallocate a small amount of money already approved by Congress for ag related stuff, but the number is well less than a $100 million, not $50 billion.  Anything else would have to be approved by Congress.

Most of what I've read said the ban doesn't change the number they just sell for cheaper and go for longer trailer rides to unregulated slaughter houses in Mexico or Canada.  So, I don't think it would impact it much.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/us/Horse-Slaughter-Stopped-in-United-States-Moves-Across-Borders.html?pagewanted=all

As the domestic market for unwanted horses shrinks, more are being neglected and abandoned, and roughly the same number — nearly 140,000 a year — are being killed after a sometimes grueling journey across the border.

ETA - the ban was lifted late last year - I don't know if any plants are actually active though

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-16/activists-fight-horse-slaughter/55627406/1

OK, let's take a look at what you said:

So, I've highlighted the more editorialized portions of your OP. You can say that you were just asking a question, or you can read the subtext in the posting. I responded to the not-so-subtle nuances of the post, which seem to imply that this is a bald political pander to garner votes with money, not at all accounting for the drought, which, as has been pointed out on the thread, is somewhat unprecedented. 

One might as well have said "What about this Castro-esque government takeover of the automotive industry?" while disregarding the conditions under which GM et al were bailed out of the disaster they faced a few years ago. Extraordinary circumstances required extraordinary measures. 

Formatting was all jacked up on this response.  Let me try again.

Maybe, but in this case, the OP got the facts wrong.

There is no $50 billion being spent.  No one has even suggested spending $50 billion.

The initial article linked from the original post suggested that there could be $50 billion of costs to the economy from the drought.

There is a pending bill in Congress (passed by the House but not yet voted on by the Senate) for $383 million.  That is a lot of money, but it is less than 1% of $50 billion.

The Obama administration couldn't spend $50 billion on this problem even if they wanted to.  The money would have to be authorized by Congress

No it's not, Al Gore says it will happen every year if I don't send him a lot of money.  

On a serious note I'm still undecided on the subsidies because I don't understand it completely.  On the surface I don't like them, but I could probably be swayed.  

"The administration has already provided farmers with an estimated $9 billion so far this year to help pay crop-insurance premiums."

So, if the farmers were operating their business without insurance (aka protection) and all of a sudden something happens that requires them to have that insurance in order to survive.  Um, something doesn't sound right.  Were they over leveraged as not to get the insurance?  Were they being greedy and trying to make more money by avoiding the insurance?  Why weren't they insured and why must I now pay for their insurance after the fact?

If I don't have the necessary insurance for my business and I get hit by something unexpected I go out of business it's that simple.

Is the $9B already provided this year by the administration part of the normal farm subsidies? I'm just curious if it's a sunk cost or if there was an additional $9B provided due to the drought.  I know I could probably google it, but was curious if anyone knew.

I am pretty sure the $9 billion is part of the normal farm subsidies provided every year.  It is a little hard to tell because the original article was either sloppily written or intentional biased.  It said that the "administration provided" $9 billion.  Of course, the administration doesn't provide anything.  It was appropriated by Congress.

Good points about the livestock market.  I admittedly know little about the farm economy so it's easy to just think about the corn producers and nothing else.

i can definitely see how the corn prices can effect livestock and that it would be very difficult for them to protect themselves from such things.

You might actually be swaying my opinion there my Husker brother.  

I'm shocked - shocked - to discover that a Fox News report was inaccurately implying something about the administration!

Every news outlet is biased.......you must be easily shocked.  Those boneheads at CNN aren't any better.