As though it wasn’t hard enough to know how to run your farm, these days you almost have to be a political scientist to figure out just how the government is going to help, hinder, or meddle with your farm operations. Understanding the annual farm bill out of Congress is one such ongoing timesink, and this year’s bill makes a lot of changes. Luckily, there are a lot of smart guys out there who make this kind of stuff their business – and one of them has very kindly summed up the major changes in the farm bill this year. Here are some of the highlights – but if you have a lot of dealings with the federals, you should definitely read the whole thing.
There’s a limitation on payments of $40,000 per person, and a limit on counter-cyclical payments of $65,000, for those not participating in the ACRE (average crop revenue election) program. The good news is, there’s no limit on marketing assistance benefits.
One big change: “person” now refers only to natural persons, i.e., you or me. Companies, marketing cooperatives, partnerships, corporations – these entities can all still receive direct payments, but the limit will be based on the number of natural persons who have direct or indirect ownership interest in the entity.
Government entities, whether local, state, or federal, are no longer eligible for any payments, benefits or loans under Title I or Title XII. This does not mean that farmers operating on government land are ineligible – any lessees on government land may still receive payments.
The gross income limit on payments has been adjusted – you’re not eligible to receive any farm program benefits if your three-year average adjusted non-farm income exceeds $500,000. Also, nobody will be eligible for direct payments in a crop year if their average farm income exceeds $750,000. (I guess Ted Turner will be crying himself to sleep this week.)
Finally, conservation benefits are restricted to those whose average adjusted nonfarm income is less than $1,000,000, unless two-thirds of that income is farm-based. However, there’s a waffle clause in there that says owners of “environmentally sensitive land of special significance” can get a waiver on this limit – now Ted just needs to convince someone in the Department of Agriculture that his ranch is very special indeed. This one seems a little off-base to me; I can certainly see limiting direct payments for farmers who are wealthy, but we make conservation payments to encourage good land practice. That encouragement shouldn’t go away just because you’re doing well; otherwise we’ll end up with a bunch of poor farmers doing good land practice on their tiny farms, and the rich guys not practicing good land stewardship on their huge acreage.


Comments
Post has no comments.