The Two Sides of Crop Insurance

In this Aug. 16, 2012 file photo, a combine harvests corn in a field near Coy, Ark.  Thousands of farmers are filing crop insurance claims this year as drought and triple-digit temperatures burn up much of the corn belt. The Agriculture Department has paid $1.4 billion to date, but the bulk of claims hasnít been filed yet as the corn and soybean harvests have just begun.
National Journal
Michael Catalin
Add to Briefcase
Michael Catalin
Sept. 18, 2013, 4:30 p.m.

Call it a Wash­ing­ton story.

De­pend­ing on whom you talk to, the crop-in­sur­ance pro­gram is either an es­sen­tial risk-man­age­ment tool that helps farm­ers when dis­aster strikes or a Robin Hood-in-re­verse scheme that takes from the poor and gives to the rich.

Crop in­sur­ance pays farm­ers when their pro­duc­tion un­der-per­forms; the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment pays a sub­stan­tial por­tion of the premi­ums. Out­side ana­lys­is and eco­nom­ic ex­perts boldly as­sert that the pro­gram, which grew up over the past sev­er­al dec­ades, sub­sid­izes rich farm­ers at the pub­lic’s ex­pense.

“People who are not on the House or Sen­ate Ag com­mit­tees are ba­sic­ally say­ing, ‘Why are we giv­ing rich people lots of money when we have budget de­fi­cits and we’re cut­ting pro­grams to help very poor people?’ ” said Vin­cent Smith, an eco­nom­ics pro­fess­or at Montana State Uni­versity and a schol­ar at the Amer­ic­an En­ter­prise In­sti­tute.

The pro­gram, which sub­sid­izes the cost of in­sur­ance for pro­du­cers to the tune of 62 per­cent, sets up a mor­al haz­ard for farm­ers, Smith ar­gues. The think­ing goes like this: If the gov­ern­ment is will­ing to pay most of the cost of in­sur­ance, farm­ers have an in­cent­ive to use few­er pesti­cides and herb­i­cides and to farm mar­gin­al lands, be­cause they’re shoul­der­ing less risk, pay­ing only 38 per­cent of the cost of in­sur­ance premi­ums.

This dy­nam­ic ex­plains why the pro­gram has faced scru­tiny lately. “A De­pres­sion-era pro­gram in­ten­ded to save Amer­ic­an farm­ers from ru­in has grown in­to a 21st-cen­tury crutch en­abling af­flu­ent grow­ers and fin­an­cial in­sti­tu­tions to thrive at tax­pay­er ex­pense,” blas­ted a re­cent Bloomberg News art­icle that took a crit­ic­al look at the crop-in­sur­ance pro­gram.

But the pro­gram also has power­ful de­fend­ers, in­clud­ing House Ag­ri­cul­ture Com­mit­tee Chair­man Frank Lu­cas, R-Okla. Ad­voc­ates ar­gue that the pro­gram — which cost tax­pay­ers al­most $14 bil­lion last year, ac­cord­ing to Ag­ri­cul­ture De­part­ment fig­ures — saves the gov­ern­ment from bail­ing out farm­ers when dis­asters hap­pen. “Without crop in­sur­ance, these farm­ers would have no way to re­cov­er from these dev­ast­at­ing con­di­tions un­less the gov­ern­ment would step in to provide im­me­di­ate, un­planned, and un­budgeted dis­aster as­sist­ance,” Lu­cas said in a ra­dio ad­dress. “With crop in­sur­ance, farm­ers are able to plan for dis­asters by pay­ing for cov­er­age. This cov­er­age doesn’t make them whole, but rather helps them sur­vive.”

Le­gions of lob­by­ists also de­fend the pro­gram. In 2012, farm and crop-in­sur­ance in­terest groups spent $52 mil­lion try­ing to in­flu­ence the gov­ern­ment, ac­cord­ing to the Sun­light Found­a­tion. Pro­mot­ing the crop-in­sur­ance pro­gram against crit­ics has be­come a ma­jor busi­ness. Sev­er­al dozen in­terest groups wrote a joint let­ter to sen­at­ors dur­ing the farm-bill de­bate in March ur­ging a “strong, mean­ing­ful and af­ford­able” pro­gram.

“In ag­ri­cul­ture, one thing is for cer­tain: Crop loss will oc­cur in some part of the United States each year. The sig­ni­fic­ant, wide­spread crop losses of 2011 and 2012 have clearly demon­strated the need for crop-in­sur­ance pro­tec­tion and the pub­lic-private part­ner­ship of pro­gram de­liv­ery,” they wrote.

Keith Collins, a former chief eco­nom­ist at USDA who works with Na­tion­al Crop In­sur­ance Ser­vices, a non­profit that ad­voc­ates for the pro­gram, poin­ted to the drought that hit the South­w­est last year. Com­pens­a­tion for drought-re­lated dam­age amoun­ted to about $17 bil­lion. If it wer­en’t for the crop-in­sur­ance pro­gram, ad­voc­ates say, the cost of that crisis would have been passed on to con­sumers.

“If you didn’t have a sub­sidy, you’d have to charge for that. And so your premi­um rates for in­sur­ance for the kinds of risk that crop in­sur­ance cov­ers would be very high,” Collins said. “It’s not like an auto­mobile ac­ci­dent that sort of oc­curs ran­domly throughout so­ci­ety. But once you have a drought or you have a ma­jor flood or a hur­ricane, you get these sys­tem­ic losses.”

Pay­outs, though, have been a source of cri­ti­cism, with de­tract­ors char­ging that crop-in­sur­ance com­pany ex­ec­ut­ives are re­luct­ant to make them. To some ex­tent, that’s just how the busi­ness works, some ad­voc­ates say.

“In­sur­ance com­pan­ies are in the busi­ness to earn an ad­equate re­turn on their in­vest­ment; that’s what they do for a liv­ing. So for them to not want to pay losses, that’s their be­ha­vi­or,” said Thomas Zachari­as, pres­id­ent of Na­tion­al Crop In­sur­ance Ser­vices.

At the same time, ad­voc­ates say, pay­outs would ar­gu­ably be less if the gov­ern­ment ran the pro­gram rather than just sub­sid­ized it, on the as­sump­tion that a pro­gram run en­tirely by the pub­lic sec­tor would be less ef­fi­cient. “The in­cent­ive to pay losses at the mar­gin would not be as great as the private sec­tor,” Zachari­as said.

But op­pon­ents say the real is­sue is wheth­er gov­ern­ment should be sub­sid­iz­ing pro­du­cers at the level it does. Smith poin­ted to con­ser­vat­ive law­makers who have raised this is­sue — but, he notes, they’re not on the Ag­ri­cul­ture Com­mit­tee.

“They’ve all been say­ing farm sub­sidies are not bail­ing out Grapes of Wrath [farm­ers] who are fa­cing ra­pa­cious land­lords,” Smith said. “This is not Stein­beck’s Grapes of Wrath story. In gen­er­al, most people are not go­ing to like a policy that takes money from the av­er­age tax­pay­er and gives to people who are rich­er. That’s what crop-in­sur­ance policy does.”

What We're Following See More »
BOENTE WILL TAKE OVER AS G.C.
Rybicki Departs FBI
11 hours ago
THE LATEST

"FBI Director Chris Wray will change his chief of staff in the coming weeks, multiple sources told CNN Tuesday. James Rybicki, who served Wray's predecessor, James Comey, in the same role, will soon leave, the sources said. Zachary Harmon, a white-collar lawyer, will take on the role." Rybicki played a "role in crafting a statement that exonerated Hillary Clinton in her email server investigation." In related news, the Washington Post reports that "Dana Boente, the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia who is acting head of the Justice Department’s national security division, has been selected to be the FBI’s next general counsel."

Source:
TRUMP TEAM HOPES TO ANSWER IN “HYBRID FORM”
Mueller Seeks to Interview Trump
12 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is seeking to question President Trump in the coming weeks about his decisions to oust national security adviser Michael Flynn and FBI Director James B. Comey, according to two people familiar with his plans. ... The president’s legal team hopes to provide Trump’s testimony in a hybrid form — answering some questions in a face-to-face interview and others in a written statement."

Source:
SUSPECT CONTINUED INVOLVEMENT OF RUSSIAN BOTS
Feinstein, Schiff Call on Facebook, Twitter to Investigate “Release the Memo” Campaign
17 hours ago
THE LATEST
LAST WEEK
Mueller Interviewed Sessions
18 hours ago
THE LATEST
Source:
SHUTDOWN OFFICIALLY ENDS
Trump Signs Spending Bill
1 days ago
THE LATEST
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login