St. Joseph casino owner Bill Grace, who owns farm land in Gentry County, received more than $387,000 in federal farm subsidies over a five-year period.
Mr. Grace - whose background includes casino interests in four states, ownership of a construction company and involvement in shopping center and hotel ventures - isn't the only prominent business executive or corporation named in a Web site that lists the top recipients of government farm subsidies from 1996 to 2001.
The Environmental Working Group's Web site showed that chemical giant DuPont received $188,732 in payments over the same time period. The company now known as MeadWestvaco received a total of $280,000 - though none of that was for farm production in Northwest Missouri.
In Beverly Hills, Calif., a total of 31 people received $412,687 in farm payments from 1996 to 2001.
"I didn't get into farming for subsidies," said Mr. Grace, who has owned the farm for 30 years. "I got into farming and subsidies were presented by the federal government. I love that farm. I love farm life."
All they did was follow the rules. While there's nothing illegal about a huge corporation or wealthy individual receiving farm subsidies, some say the Web site highlights problems that need to be fixed in federal farm programs.
"We are subsidizing the corporatization of agriculture," said Rhonda Perry of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, an organization that advocates for family farms. "We're funding it with our tax dollars."
Others say those who access the Web site, which has the Internet address www.ewg.org, aren't getting all the facts about farm payments.
"It sure created quite a bit of discussion," said Marshall Pile, who farms more than 1,000 acres in Gentry County and also serves as presiding county commissioner.
Mr. Pile, who farms with his son and was listed as receiving $294,000 in subsidies on the Web site, said city residents don't realize that farmers have to get big to survive. Mr. Pile said he had an operating loss last year, and his newest piece of equipment is a 1991 tractor.
Mr. Pile, who was the 10th-largest recipient of farm payments in Gentry County, defended Mr. Grace, who was No. 3 on the county list. Gentry County residents refer to Mr. Grace as a loyal taxpayer and a good neighbor.
"Bill Grace just happens to own more acres than I do," Mr. Pile said. "When you base everything on acres, it doesn't make any difference who owns the acres."
Mr. Grace, who grew up on a farm, has two full-time employees who work his 5,000-acre operation. Mr. Pile said Mr. Grace faces the same difficulties as other farmers.
"That isn't profit you can take somewhere else," Mr. Pile said. "To operate that farm he would have needed to put (the money) back in."
Mr. Grace said he gets to the farm at least once every other week. He says he didn't design the current farm system and he isn't profiting by it. Most of his subsidies are for taking land out of production, he said.
"You can't make money on $2 corn," he said. "I haven't pulled any money out of that farm since it's been open. We have a terrible time because of our government policies."
Unlike other farmers, Mr. Grace owns a casino that reported $25.9 million in gross revenue for the 2001 fiscal year. But that's not too big of a concern to Gregg Staley, a farmer in Rea, Mo.
Mr. Staley, who was listed as making $237,698 in payments, said the system has to treat everyone the same way regardless of who they are or how much money they make in other ventures.
He estimates that less than 1 percent of payments goes to major corporations or Ted Turner-type individuals who aren't full-time farmers.
"I don't think that's a factor," he said. "You can't exclude people. That gets to be a real nightmare."
Ms. Perry of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center said the farm-subsidy debate shouldn't center on whether bigger farms get more and smaller farms get less.
The largest subsidy recipients in Northwest Missouri were Dale Farming Company in Harrison County and Hrb Farming Partnership in Livingston County. Both received more than $1 million.
Twelve farms in Northwest Missouri received more than $600,000 over the five-year span. They were Potter Farms Inc. in Andrew County, Gubser Farms in Atchison County, Atha Farms of Buchanan County, Greenwood Swine System in Caldwell County, Agri Concerns, Thomas A. Tubbs and T & T Farms in Holt County, Chillicothe Properties in Livingston County, Jerry Brown Inc. of Nodaway County and Payton Farms in Platte County.
Premium Standard Farms, the nation's second-largest hog producer, received $411,902 for its Missouri operations, according to the Web site.
Ms. Perry said family farmers have no choice but to rely on subsidies because of what she sees as flaws in current farm policies. She said a failure to ensure fair market prices or promote greater competition in the packing industry are hurting family farmers and leading to some of the inequities found on the Environmental Working Group's Web site.
"If people are family farmers, I don't have any problem with them getting subsidies," she said. "But it's a bad system. Farms are going to have to keep getting bigger and bigger."
A reliance on subsidies means some of those payments are bound to go to corporations or others who may not be as needy as a more traditional family farmer, Ms. Perry said.
"The people with money and the people with power are going to continue to make out like bandits," she said.
No cure-all: Farm bill still leaves problems
By SUSAN MIRES susanm@npgco.com
St. Joseph News-Press: June 9, 2002
The most complicated farm bill in history, signed by President Bush in May, will soon start impacting farmers across the nation.
Under the new legislation, producers must decide by Aug. 15 the number of acres they want to enroll in the federal farm program. The bill, which was debated by Congress for months, includes direct payments to farmers, as well as money for soil and water conservation, nutrition, rural development and research.
"We don't necessarily go into this with high expectations," said Dan Cassity with the Missouri Farm Bureau. "There's not one piece of legislation that can turn around all the challenges in agriculture."
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 is projected to cost about $190 billion over the next 10 years. Much of the money is directed toward crop producers to compensate for low market prices. In 2001, government payments made up more than 40 percent of income for the nation's farmers, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
"We would all rather receive income from the marketplace, but for the last few years, that's not been possible," said Paul Steele, a farmer at Chillicothe, Mo.
Government policy emphasizes cheap food, Mr. Steele said. Federal farm programs are designed to create an abundant supply of grain, oil crops and cotton, which holds down the price farmers receive for their products.
"Aren't we fortunate we have the problem of overproduction instead of underproduction and people going hungry?" Mr. Steele said.
Farm subsidies came under intense scrutiny during the lengthy debate of the farm bill. Adding to the controversy was a Web site launched last fall by the Environmental Working Group. The site lists the how much money each farmer has received in government payments from 1996 to 2001.
"The whole idea was to help out family farmers," said Liz Moore, press secretary for the group based in Washington, D.C.
The Environmental Working Group does not object to the total amount of money spent on the farm program, but believes more money should be distributed to small farms and conservation efforts.
The data was available previously, but the Environmental Working Group made it easily accessible, Ms. Moore said. She said the group has received letters from farmers thanking them for posting the information.
Mr. Cassity, however, said the group's efforts created more division and hard feelings in the agriculture industry than anything else in recent history.
"They claim to promote family farms, but they've created a climate where farmers in rural communities are looked at as if they've done something wrong," Mr. Cassity said. "It's an underhanded tactic the foes of agriculture have used for shock value."
He said there were reports of children of farmers being teased at school about the amount of payments their parents received.
"We have nothing to be ashamed of," Mr. Cassity said. "It's something farmers can be proud of that we feed not only this country but much of the world."
Gregg Staley, a farmer at Rea, Mo., said he didn't think the Web site had much impact on the new farm bill.
"Curiosity was the main reason a lot of people looked at it," Mr. Staley said.
The Environmental Working Group believes that farm policy gives a disproportionate amount of money to the largest operations. Missouri's top recipient, Missouri Delta Farms, got $20 million over five years. According to the Web site, Mr. Steele received $423,326 over the same period.
"It is a lot of money until you look at what our production costs are," Mr. Steele said.
He noted that a new combine costs $250,000; the average tractor runs about $100,000.
"We have to struggle - and I mean that - we have to struggle to survive," Mr. Steele said.
It's unclear how the new farm bill will affect individual farmers and the general rural economy.
"Many rural areas are becoming less dependent on agriculture, so it will not have as much impact as it would have had 15 or 20 years ago," said Jason Henderson, an economist with the Center for the Study of Rural Affairs at the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City.
Critics of farm policy, including the Environmental Working Group, blame the program for driving up land prices and forcing smaller farms out of business. Mr. Steele believes the process of farms getting larger would continue without the farm program.
"In some ways agriculture is becoming like Wal-Mart - larger and larger with smaller amounts of margins," he said.
The result is that consumers receive a cheap food supply, Mr. Steele said, adding that farmers don't always want to increase their operation but feel forced to in order to remain in business.
Farm Bureau believes farms of all types and sizes should have the chance to make money.
"A lot of things determine the profitability of a farm," Mr. Cassity said. "The determining factor is not going to be the farm bill."
Another complaint with the farm program is that payments are based on a farm's production in a given year.
"The main problem with the marketing loan is it pays you when you don't need it and it doesn't pay you when you need it," said Barry Flinchbaugh, economist with K-State Research and Extension.
For instance, farmers in Western Kansas have suffered a severe drought this year and may not harvest a crop, which means they will not receive any loan payments.
"The farm bill is also an actual reduction in payments from what we've had in the previous four years," Mr. Flinchbaugh said.
Low prices have triggered Congress to approve additional payments the last three years. Pat Westhoff at the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute said that 1999-2001 was the first time farm payments exceeded $20 billion for three consecutive years.
Portions of the farm bill do represent new thinking on rural problems, Mr. Henderson said.
"One thing this farm bill does do is boost money for rural development initiatives," he said. The figure is less than 1 percent of the total spending, but Mr. Henderson is optimistic it can be used effectively.
"We need to find more ways in addition to agriculture to help rural communities," he said.
It also includes a record amount of money for conservation on private land, nearly $13 billion over the next six years.
The Department of Agriculture is now working with employees to implement rules and procedures mandated by the new legislation. The first installment of 2003 direct payments will be made in December. The implementation process is expected to take several months.:
