Re-evaluate subsidies

Since the Great Depression, the U.S. government has provided farmers with agricultural subsidies. The subsidies were originally intended to protect farmers from inflation or a decreased harvest while keeping the cost of agri-products low and providing stability to the agricultural economy. However, these subsidies often benefit commercial agricultural producers while harming smaller farms, because they are offered based on a crop-yield standard, which means the more a farmer produces, the more subsidies that farmer receives.

Providing subsidies in this manner encourages farmers to overproduce and grow monoculture crops such as rice and corn, which can create inefficiencies in the market. These crops can be grown at a faster rate than seasonal crops and can be grown yearround. This system helps commercial farms flourish, but discourages family farms and diverse crop production, since they are smaller and cannot grow enough crops to receive comparable subsidies.

Commercial farms can produce more crops than family farms because they’ll receive the benefits of excess production through subsidies. This effectively allows them to undercut family farms. Of the 2.1 million farms in America, only 39 percent receive subsidies from the government. In 2016, commercial farms accounted for 10 percent of all farms, but were given 73 percent of crop subsidy payments and 83 percent of crop insurance payments. This means small farms—the majority—only received 27 percent of commodity payments and 17 percent of insurance payments from the $20 billion a year the government provides. This means the average taxpayer dollar covers a farm that produces $500,000 worth of goods, which can handle temporary price fluctuations.

Agricultural subsidies hurt the farming industry, benefiting commercial farms while cutting family farms short. The subsidies should be re-evaluated and redistributed to ensure the efficiency of government spending. CALEB JOHNSON Vilonia