Carl Sagan, astronomer and science-for-the-masses popularizer, used to talk about “billions and billions of stars.” Though there aren’t quite that many federal farm programs, there are far too many for me to count, much less understand. But I’m sure of this: federal crop insurance is the most important and controversial one.
To its supporters, it’s a common-sense cornerstone of U.S. farm policy. They say it helps to keep our food supply safe and affordable.
To opponents, it’s the sacred cow of U.S. agriculture. They say it’s too often spared from the criticism and reform it needs.
Federal crop insurance is the ag program that critics blast the most, and the one that aggies (the majority of them, anyway) are most determined to defend. When opponents tried to make massive last-minute cuts to the program in December, aggies fought back successfully with outraged howls and steely-eyed resolve.
That win wasn’t a final or decisive victory, however. (I very much doubt there ever will be.) Critics continue to attack the program, most recently in a study by a Nebraska group that supports small and family farms. The study finds federal crop insurance inflates the value of farmland and helps big farms at the expense of small ones.
Supporters of federal crop insurance countered with other studies that minimize the impact of federal crop insurance on land values.
Just about everyone involved with ag understands the basics of federal crop insurance. But here’s a very short primer for folks who don’t:
Federal crop insurance seeks to protect farmers from “unavoidable risk” associated with bad weather, crop disease and insects. Taxpayers pick up some of the cost, farmers the rest. Crop insurance policies are sold and serviced through private companies. The federal government subsidizes the program to keep it affordable. Though federal crop insurance has been around for decades, it’s been strengthened in recent years and now serves as the main component of the government’s “farm safety net.”
There’s a lot of rhetoric and for-public-consumption posturing from both critics and supporters. Based on my conversations and experiences with both sides, I offer my take on what they really believe.
Supporters: “We’re not saying federal crop insurance is perfect. But this is an imperfect world, and the program realistically addresses a huge need.”
Critics: “We’re not saying federal crop insurance is pure evil. But it’s badly flawed, and needs major reforms.”
What’s the truth?
Who’s right? My decidedly non-expert assessment is the truth is somewhere in between — the program is more imperfect than its supporters say, less flawed than its detractors say. On balance, I think the program’s benefits outweigh its shortcomings, though not overwhelmingly so.
That won’t make either side happy. Supporters will complain, “This Agweek guy is way too hard on federal crop insurance.” Critics will complain, “This Agweek guy is far too soft on it.”
What I think really doesn’t matter, of course. Federal crop insurance is so important that neither side will ease up. The common sense cornerstone or sacred cow debate will continue as long as the program exists.
Source - prairiebusinessmagazine.com
