Who Gets All the Subsidy Money

Update to this (4.00 / 2)

Looks like our friend Blanche Lincoln's been on the government dole:

She's got a 12.7% ownership share in Grand Acres LLC, which received the following between 1995-2006:
Wheat Subsidies: $12,462
Rice Subsidies: $11,628
Sorghum Subsidies: $8,827
Soybean Subsidies: $8,156
Cotton Subsidies: $1,636

She's got a 13.1% share in J.B. Lambert Trust, which received the following during those years:
Rice Subsidies: $7,977
Wheat Subsidies: $3,850
Sorghum Subsidies: $1,783
Cotton Subsidies: $408


"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 00:06:54 AM UTC

another update (4.00 / 2)

Robin Grassley, Chuck Grassley's kid, received the following from 1995-2006:

Corn Subsidies: $522,676
Soybean Subsidies: $121,519
Wheat Subsidies: $3,132
Oat Subsidies: $102

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 00:15:06 AM UTC

Dick Lugar (4.00 / 2)

has a 9.39% share of his family's farm, Lugar Stock Farm Inc.
They've received the following payments between 1995-2006:

Corn Subsidies: $94,371
Soybean Subsidies: $21,231
Wheat Subsidies: $4,807

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 00:21:14 AM UTC

Jeebus! (4.00 / 3)

I'm in the wrong business!

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....

---

by: Joanne Rigutto @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 02:45:03 AM UTC

and in the wrong state :) nt (4.00 / 2)

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 02:51:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Heh... (4.00 / 1)

Guess there's no all-powerful hazelnut, grass seed or christmas tree lobby in DC, eh?

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 03:38:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wheat (4.00 / 2)

Interesting that North Dakota received twice the wheat subsidy that Montana did. This surprised me.

Although Montana is not among the top ten subsidy recipients, it is in the top three wheat subsidy recipients, and Max Baucus is on the Ag committee. The only reason Lincoln is Ag chair is that Baucus wanted to keep his Finance chair. He has strong, sometimes pernicious, influence on ag legislation.

I'm feeling pretty certain that GE wheat will be commercialized during Obama's tenure.

---

by: count @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 03:30:07 AM UTC

Searching... (4.00 / 2)

Jill, how does a person search the EWG farm subsidy database for a recipient name?

---

by: count @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 04:27:14 AM UTC

You have to pick a state first nt (4.00 / 2)

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 04:43:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Max Baucus et alia (4.00 / 2)

Lawmakers Ranking In Farm Subsidies

The Washington Examiner
Published June 28, 2007

Most federal employees - presidents and their appointees, career civil servants and judicial branch officials, including members of the federal bench - are required by law to divest themselves of any ownership interest in any entity that come under the purview of their agency or court. But the members of Congress who passed that law exempted themselves from such disclosure. Those same members have also exempted themselves from requirements that executive and legislative branch officials recuse themselves from any official proceeding that may create even the appearance of an impropriety.
...

» Sen. John Tester, D-Mont., received $230,311 in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2005. He has not recused himself from Senate budget votes.

» Family members of Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., received $230,237 in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2005.

» Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., owns a company that received $45,400 in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2005.

» Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., received $161,084 in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2005.

» Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, received $225,041 in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2005.

» Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., received $40,403 between 1995 and 2005. His father received $319,662 over the same period and his brother $286,082.

» Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and his wife own 13 percent of a farm that received $126,555 in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2005. The remaining 88 percent of the farm is owned by 13 members of Lugar's family.

Partial list, obviously. Nothing is as sweet as the smell of self-dealing corruption in the morning.

---

by: count @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 04:32:24 AM UTC

here's Baucus's family ranch: (4.00 / 2)

Max Baucus's great-grandfather started Sieben Ranch Company in 1897. Now the ownership is split among his relatives as follows:

John H Baucus - 6.00 %
Nina C Baucus - 44.00 %
Phillip E Baucus - 4.00 %
John F Baucus - 44.00 %
John M Baucus - 1.00 %
Gabrielle E Baucus - 1.00 %

(I can't seem to find how they are related to him. Anyone else have any luck here?)

Here's the money the Sieben Ranch Company has received between 1995-2006:

Wool Subsidies: $105,554
Barley Subsidies: $49,490
Sheep Meat Subsidies: $36,125
Livestock Subsidies: $31,743
Wheat Subsidies: $14,285
Oat Subsidies: $104

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 04:51:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Damn, Jill... (4.00 / 2)

Is EVERYTHING subsidized?

This thread is becoming quite dispiriting. Are we still having fun?

---

by: count @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 05:15:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Relationships (4.00 / 2)

From Muckety,

John F. Baucus and Nina C. Baucus are a brother and sister-in-law of Max. Max is uncle of Phillip E. Baucus, son of John F. and Nina C.

---

by: count @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 06:09:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Phillip and others (4.00 / 2)

Marine Corporal Phillip Ellison Baucus died in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, in 2006.

Jean Baucus is the mother of Max and John F. Their father was John J. Baucus.

John Harrison Baucus is Phillip's brother, another nephew of Max. One of the children of John H. is named Gabrielle. The other child of John H. is called Mitchell in Phillip's obituary - that would be John M. Baucus.

---

by: count @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 06:41:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's Brownback (4.00 / 2)

Sam Brownback - assuming it's the same Sam Brownback. He got massive amounts in conservation money, which is actually a great thing. Sen. Brownback DOES live in Topeka, KS so it's likely. I can't find out much about his family. His parents are Nancy and Robert. His wife is Mary, maiden name Stauffer. He was raised in Parker, KS. There's a James Brownback in Parker who has a received a fat $297,576 between subsidies and disaster payments, a Glen Brownback in Parker who received $ 335,140.74 and a Clyde Brownback in Parker who got a mere $1337.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 05:01:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK, so the numbers that match (4.00 / 2)

your article seem to say that Glen is his dad and James is his brother.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 05:02:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

John Salazar (4.00 / 2)

right here:

Barley Subsidies: $93,151
Wheat Subsidies: $68,701
Oat Subsidies: $35

Parents names are Emma and Enrique (Henry). Brother is Ken Salazar. Kids are Jesus, Esteban, and Miguel. Wife is Mary Lou. Doesn't seem like I saw any of them in the database.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 05:09:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

and Jon Tester (4.00 / 2)

here:

Wheat Subsidies: $36,104
Barley Subsidies: $5,105
Dry Pea Subsidies: $1,377
Oat Subsidies: $66

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 05:10:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tester (4.00 / 2)

Total payments for that listing, $129,453, most for conservation payments. Also, R. Jon Tester and his wife Sharla D. co-own T-Bone Farms, which received $244,236 in 1995-2006, none of it from conservation funds.

Total: $373,799 to the Testers for 1995-2006.

---

by: count @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 05:31:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sieben Ranch (4.00 / 3)

I believe they are all cousins. My Dad's Step sister was married to Max Baucus' Uncle Bill Baucus who was a tax lawyer in Helena, MT

The Sieben Ranch BTW is around 1 million acres of sheep farming (and some grains). I have been to it and it takes about 35 minutes to drive the length of one side of the ranch doing 75mph. It is one of the largest ranches in the world, or was in the 1980's.

---

by: Boulder Belt @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 10:49:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sieben Ranch (4.00 / 1)

The owners are the brother of Max Baucus and members of the brother's family.

---

by: count @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 12:23:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

mega confusion (4.00 / 2)

For the heck of it, I searched for subsidy recipients in zip code 59901. That is Kalispell, Montana, a town not noted as an agricultural powerhouse, but I was surprised to see a lot of subsidy money went there. I clicked on the top name, one Avis M. Feury, who received $672,561 in 1995-2006. Another click showed that all the money was disbursed from county offices in four North Dakota counties, none in Montana. Clicking on the FARM LOCATION button showed that Feury's latest address on file in one of those North Dakota counties was in Scottsdale, Arizona. That office sent $559,449 to Scottsdale. Last address on file in the other three county offices was Kalispell, Montana. $113,111 went to Kalispell.

So, was the $672,561 attributed to North Dakota in the EWG subsidy database, or was it divided between Arizona and Montana? And who the heck is Avis Feury?

---

by: count @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 04:47:22 AM UTC

no idea nt (4.00 / 2)

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 04:51:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Avis Feury (4.00 / 2)

Avis M. Feury married Russell J. Munro in November 2001, so Avis is of the female persuasion. Reported by The Daily Inter Lake, Kalispell's daily newspaper.

KALISPELL, Montana (MT) Political Contributions by Individuals

2005 / 2006 Contributions:

AVIS FEURY (NONE/RETIRED), (Zip code: 59901) $750 to MONTANANS FOR TESTER on 08/26/06

According to OpenSecrets.org, this was her only political campaign contribution from 1990-2008. She also contributed to Flathead Valley Community College in 2003.

Feury Family Llc

Feury Family Llc is a private company categorized under Farms and located in Kalispell, MT. Our records show it was established in 1997 and incorporated in Montana. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of $170,000 and employs a staff of approximately 3.

But, no subsidy payments disbursed by the Flathead County office or any Montana office?

---

by: count @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 10:51:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's some Avis Feury Info (4.00 / 2)

http://www.manta.com/c/mm794m4...

---

by: Boulder Belt @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 10:54:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gollllleee! (4.00 / 1)

3,591 entities received more than $500,000 in subsidy payments from farm operations in North Dakota, 1995-2006. Avis Feury, for example, is listed once, showing her aggregate payout and her Arizona location. 437 farms/farmers received more than one million dollars in subsidy payments, 677 received more than $900,000.

Adding to the confusion, though. If I go to a state and scroll through the recipient list, Avis Feury shows up in North Dakota but not Arizona or Montana. If I go to a state and search by recipient's last name, Avis shows up in Arizona and Montana, but not North Dakota. A diligent investigator can track down who get's what, but it is not straightforward.

(I also find small aggregate payments to Andrew Feury, with subsidies disbursed by offices in two North Dakota counties, who list his address as Kalispell, Montana.)

Avis Feury received more conservation payments than disaster + crop payments.

---

by: count @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 12:12:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

geezy peeezy! (4.00 / 3)

post this to DKos? lots of folks there like trekking through numbers and with a link & a few tips on searching, they'd scour all sorts of interesting info...

---

by: martini @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 06:45:57 AM UTC

good idea (4.00 / 3)

will do tomorrow?

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 07:15:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Senate appropriations committee (4.00 / 1)

I'm having trouble with some Senate websites right now, but according to a recent GPO document, the following is now the roster of the Ag Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee:

Democrats

Mr. Kohl, Chairman
Mr. Harkin                      
Mr. Dorgan                      
Mrs. Feinstein                  
Mr. Durbin                      
Mr. Johnson                    
Mr. Nelson, of Nebraska        
Mr. Reed
Mr. Pryor (D-AR)
Mr. Specter

Republicans

Mr. Brownback
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Bond
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Collins
Mr. McConnell

I assume "Mr." Collins is Susan Collins (R-ME)?

I don't know when Pryor and Collins were added. And of course, Specter is a Democrat!

---

by: count @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 13:54:09 PM UTC

Heh... (4.00 / 1)

I assume "Mr." Collins is Susan Collins (R-ME)?

Unless former NY NJ Giants quarterback Kerry Collins went to the Senate, I'm pretty sure you're correct!

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 21:59:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

wrong on subsidies (4.00 / 3)

Subsidy programs tend to be net loss programs for farmers and states while processors get huge benefits.  Any amount given here must be matched with the loss side, the losses which tend to be bigger than the gain side of actual government subsidies.  The subsidy database does not provide any hint that such a perspective is needed, nor does it offer any data.

Jill's book is probably the best in the food movement in correcting the false subsidy paradigm, but maybe she still missed this point or forgot it.  My blog may be the best place on the web to get at this false paradigm (ie. http://www.zmag.org/blog/view/... or http://www.zmag.org/zspace/bra...  It's one of the few places that even discusses the widespread false paradigm of foodies/commodity groups.

Ag Economist Daryll Ray has a chart showing how things went downhill after the 1996 farm bill, even with increased subsidies (http://agpolicy.org/weekcol/011.html)

USDA's Economic Research Service studied this sporadically for five crops, corn, cotton, rice, grain sorghum and barley,  Scroll down to "Effects of Government Programs on Costs and Returns," at "Commodity Costs and Returns: U.S. and Regional Cost and Return Data," http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/C...  U.S. farmers had net losses vs. full ownership costs overall for each commodity and time period studied.  In all cases, (about 5 years each) there were net losses.  So if you eat, the net result is that (US and world) farmers subsidize you, not the other way around.

Subsidies are a false issue.  Policy changes that affect only subsidies are pro agribusiness, pro transfats, pro fructose, pro CAFOs, pro dumping.  See  why at my blog (shown above).  Jill have you previously linked me anywhere here?

We must stop this scapegoating (subsidy myths) that secretly helps give multibillions to the real recipients, like you see here:  http://www.nffc.net/Learn/Fact...  Follow THAT money, not this pretend money!  See my blog (documented facts).

"We're trying to warn this nation of a tidal wave ..., and it's coming your way, whether you want to know it or not...!"  female family farm activist in Iowa warning against agribusiness, Donahue Show, 1985

---

by: Brad Wilson @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 23:49:48 PM UTC

thanks (4.00 / 2)

I love Daryll Ray. In this case I was just looking for some raw data, not making a judgment about the subsidies themselves.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 23:53:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Now that you're registered, (4.00 / 1)

drop by more often. We discuss how subsidies to farmers benefit seed sellers and vendors of biocides and fertilizers, as well as vertical integrators and banks. We also talk about the role subsidies play in the U.S effort to destroy indigenous agricultures in other countries. Having a discussion about subsidies which unfairly scapegoats farmers is possible to do, but Jill did not do that and subsidies are not a "false issue."

---

by: count @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:59:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

False Subsidy Issue (0.00 / 0)

I apologize for expressing my frustration.  Rarely are subsidies correctly discussed, as I will show, and it seems very difficult to get people to change out of what I call the false subsidy paradigm.  The subsidy paradigm is simple, clear and false, while the truth is a bit more difficult.  I think Michael Pollan knows better, for example, as I've spoken to him about this and he's spent significant time with George Naylor, but he continues to speak falsely about subsidies, (which he did in both Food Inc. and Fresh, as well as all across YouTube).

"not making a judgement about subsidies themselves?"  I agree with exposing the scandal of huge (billions not millions) of farm bill benefits coming from congress and going to beneficiaries, as in this story.  It's just that the benefits are not subsidies, and farmers (who get the subsidies) are not the farm bill beneficiaries.  The scandal is bigger than the numbers listed here show, and they are hidden, not shown in the numbers here.

Ok, let's discuss.  As to "how subsidies to farmers benefit seed sellers and vendors of biocides and fertilizers, as well as vertical integrators and banks" and "the role subsidies play in the U.S effort to destroy indigenous agricultures in other countries" and " subsidies are not a 'false issue.'"  Actually subsidies do none of those things, so yes, they are a "false issue."  Even though you can find a thousand articles agreeing with you, I'm confident I can easily show it's not true.

Basically, we know historically and from econometric studies that subsidies don't significantly affect farm prices or overproduction.  That is, "subsidized corn, etc." is not the culprit in the various problems.  The problems are real and huge, just not caused by subsidies.  So low prices for corn, etc. do make fructose and transfats cheaper vs fruits and vegetables (the stuff Pollan describes in the movies), run 3rd world farmers out of business and provide below cost gains to animal factories, for example.  And it does a lot more, such as making grass farming more expensive relative to grain.  Over production (fence row to fence row fuels the input complex (Monsanto, John Deere, etc.).

But none of this is caused by subsidies and farmers don't usually get any benefits (ie nets above zero, even with subsidies).  So none of you know how it works?  What's the cause?  Doesn't Jill's book have this (I'm on vacation, I don't have the book here)?  It's the best recent book I've seen on this.

Can the real answer be found anywhere on this blog?  On any food blog? In any farm bill primer from the food/hunger/sustainable agriculture movements?  

Subsidies are not a mechanism to directly or economically affect market price or supply.  Getting rid of subsidies would have very small (indirect) up (ie. cotton) or down (ie. corn) affects on prices and therefore on all the issues,  Example:  About 3% up or down (indirect, not guaranteed) impacts: chart on page 21 of:  http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs...  But dumping (and low prices that cause the full list of problems) has often been 25% or more:  http://www.iatp.org/iatp/publi...

But there are real solutions!  So it can be fixed!  But usually all we hear is the diversion of subsidies (and subsidy caps, green subsidies) so no solution to low prices (or high prices) is mentioned.

"We're trying to warn this nation of a tidal wave ..., and it's coming your way, whether you want to know it or not...!"  female family farm activist in Iowa warning against agribusiness, Donahue Show, 1985

---

by: Brad Wilson @ Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 16:18:24 PM UTC