Home / News / Policy news / Insurance cuts would hit farmers

Insurance cuts would hit farmers

DANIEL LOOKER 02/14/2012 @ 3:57pm Business Editor

Farmers would take a big hit in cuts to crop insurance premiums proposed in the Obama Administration’s 2013 USDA budget released Monday. That idea isn’t going over well, either in Congress or among farm groups.

“There’s pretty much unanimous agreement among farmers and here in Congress that we need a strong crop insurance program,” Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee told Agriculture.com Tuesday.

According to this detailed breakdown of the USDA budget, the federal government would save $3.3 billion over 10 years by cutting subsidies on farmers’ premiums. “The proposal would reduce the premium subsidy levels by 2 percentage points for those policies that are currently subsidized by more than 50 percent,” says page 101 of that appendix to the budget. Currently, USDA subsidizes about 60% of farmers' premium costs.

That savings from lowering subsidies is about a tenth of what USDA estimates would be saved by doing away with direct payments. So far, USDA already has cut billions of dollars from crop insurance by lowering the reimbursement it pays to private insurance companies for their administrative and operating expenses from delivering federal crop insurance. It’s proposing doing that again, too, for an estimated savings of $2.9 billion over 10 years.

“The current cap on administrative expenses to be paid to participating crop insurance companies is based on the 2010 premiums, which were among the highest ever,” the budget document says. “A more appropriate level for the cap would be based on 2006 premiums, neutralizing the spike in commodity prices over the last four years, but not harming the delivery system.”

USDA also seeks to save another $1.2 billion over 10 years  by lowering crop insurance companies’ return on investment from 14% to a 12% target.

Even agricultural leaders in Obama’s own party aren’t going along with this.

“I am encouraged the President agrees that direct payments are an indefensible program of the past, but do not agree with further cuts to crop insurance, which is a critical risk management tool,” Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) said in a statement Monday. “I have heard loud and clear that strong, effective risk management is the number one priority of farmers and producers across the country. Farming is a high risk business and we don’t want farmers and other small businesses going under because a few days of bad weather – it jeopardizes the economy and the safety of our national food supply.”

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) concurred on crop insurance. “President Obama’s proposal to cut crop insurance threatens the integrity of the program itself,” Lucas said.  “And, he ignores other areas for savings such as streamlining or eliminating duplicative programs in conservation, or closing loopholes in nutrition spending.”

CancelPost Comment

Crop Insurance: When "Subsidies" mean "Strong" 02/15/2012 @ 8:10am As a writer, I pay attention to the wordsmithing as Washington begins to discuss...anything. Apparently, certain words are chosen, and then repeated to the point that each of us create our own hard-wired definition and it begins to relieve us from the burden of thought. "Sustainablity" is an extreme example. The crop insurance debate has chosen "Strong". Since I am not yet hardwired for Strong = Subsidies, I am still thinking, but it is getting harder. It is to the point that I am going to ask my insurance company if my unsubsidized car and house insurance is "Weak". As a farmer, I realize the important of crop insurance, but I also understand the importance of risk and how that creates opportunities of innovation. Since the age of farmers creeps up, the policies start looking more like a comforter than a safety net. Just like direct payments are incorporated into land values, crop insurance subsidies are incorporated into status quo at a time when ag really needs new blood that is far more willing to address risk in an innovative manner than with a Strong Subsidy program.

Report Abuse Reply
MORE FROM DANIEL LOOKER more +

Diverting Trade From China By: 07/29/2014 @ 5:34pm If China won't buy distillers' grains, other nations are likely to fill that gap fairly…

Final RFS Rule Soon By: 07/24/2014 @ 2:55pm Senator Al Franken (D-MN) told reporters Thursday after meeting with an adviser to President Barack…

MEDIA CENTERmore +
This container should display a .swf file. If not, you may need to upgrade your Flash player.
Weather Trumps Demand