• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

USA Today: Farm subsidies benefitting legislators

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Link

WASHINGTON ? When the bill that would extend farm subsidies for five years goes to the Senate floor this week, eight senators will have special reason to pay close attention: They or their relatives collected about $3 million in federal payments from 1995 to 2005, according to government records compiled by a non-partisan environmental group.

They join four House members in a small group of lawmakers connected to farming operations that received a total of $6.2 million in subsidies over that period. Many say their experience with the programs has given them valuable insight into the issue.

"Without these programs, there are some years that we would have been in very, very dire straights," said Sen. Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat elected last year who farms 1,800 acres. Along with his wife, he received about $232,000 from 1995-2005, according to Department of Agriculture records gathered by the Environmental Working Group.

Congressional ethics rules allow members who get farm subsidies to vote on the bills that authorize them, on the grounds that the bills affect a general class of people. Some see a problem with that.

"Just because it's not a conflict of interest under the rules doesn't mean it isn't a conflict to a regular person looking at it," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the non-partisan Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. At the least, Sloan said, lawmakers should be required to publicly disclose when they vote to benefit themselves or their families as part of a small group.

Members of Congress must report sources of income totaling more than $200, but most get payments through partnerships or other entities, so it can be difficult to learn which ones receive the subsidies. Recipients are searchable by name on www.ewg.org, but, for example, payments to Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., are listed under her maiden name, Lambert, at a Virginia address near Washington.

Records show Lincoln and her family members collected $715,000 from 1995-2005, the most recent year complete data are available. She said she personally received less than $10,000 a year, and the subsidies ended in 2005 when her land was sold.

The proposed $283 billion, five-year Senate farm bill would preserve a system that pays 84% of subsidies to the biggest 20% of the farms, according to the working group, which supports caps on farm payments. Some agribusiness companies receive millions from taxpayers each year, even with crop prices at record levels.

One farmer-senator, Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa, plans to offer an amendment that would cap payments at $250,000 annually.

Grassley collected about $225,000 for his corn and soybean farm from 1995-2005. His son took in about $654,000, records show. Neither ever got $250,000 in a year.

President Bush wants to end subsidies for anyone making more than $200,000 in adjusted gross income ? a formula that easily could capture members of Congress, who earn $165,000 per year in salary. Grassley says a payment cap is easier to get done.

Tester expressed support for the Grassley amendment, as did Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., whose father and brother are listed as some of his state's biggest subsidy recipients. Lincoln has opposed similar payment caps, as have the four House members whose families have received subsidies. "It puts my guys out of business," Lincoln said Monday.

Grassley, Brownback and Tester said they support a system of subsidies for small and medium-sized farmers to provide a safety net and protect the nation's food supply.

Only one subsidy recipient in Congress wants to dramatically pare direct payments to farmers: Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, whose family farm received $126,555 from 1995-2005.

Lugar backs a plan to cap federal farm payments at $30,000 a year.

Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark., says the system works well. He and his family's farming interests received almost $2.4 million in federal payments from 1995-2005, records show. His net worth in 2005 was $1.7 million to $6.6 million, according to his financial disclosure statement. "He has firsthand experience of how this really benefits farmers," said his spokeswoman, Angela Guyadeen.
Yep. I bet $2.4 million in payments over 10 years worked out real well for Rep. Berry. I got in the wrong racket.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: Queasy
Link

WASHINGTON ? When the bill that would extend farm subsidies for five years goes to the Senate floor this week, eight senators will have special reason to pay close attention: They or their relatives collected about $3 million in federal payments from 1995 to 2005, according to government records compiled by a non-partisan environmental group.

They join four House members in a small group of lawmakers connected to farming operations that received a total of $6.2 million in subsidies over that period. Many say their experience with the programs has given them valuable insight into the issue.

"Without these programs, there are some years that we would have been in very, very dire straights," said Sen. Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat elected last year who farms 1,800 acres. Along with his wife, he received about $232,000 from 1995-2005, according to Department of Agriculture records gathered by the Environmental Working Group.

Congressional ethics rules allow members who get farm subsidies to vote on the bills that authorize them, on the grounds that the bills affect a general class of people. Some see a problem with that.

"Just because it's not a conflict of interest under the rules doesn't mean it isn't a conflict to a regular person looking at it," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the non-partisan Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. At the least, Sloan said, lawmakers should be required to publicly disclose when they vote to benefit themselves or their families as part of a small group.

Members of Congress must report sources of income totaling more than $200, but most get payments through partnerships or other entities, so it can be difficult to learn which ones receive the subsidies. Recipients are searchable by name on www.ewg.org, but, for example, payments to Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., are listed under her maiden name, Lambert, at a Virginia address near Washington.

Records show Lincoln and her family members collected $715,000 from 1995-2005, the most recent year complete data are available. She said she personally received less than $10,000 a year, and the subsidies ended in 2005 when her land was sold.

The proposed $283 billion, five-year Senate farm bill would preserve a system that pays 84% of subsidies to the biggest 20% of the farms, according to the working group, which supports caps on farm payments. Some agribusiness companies receive millions from taxpayers each year, even with crop prices at record levels.

One farmer-senator, Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa, plans to offer an amendment that would cap payments at $250,000 annually.

Grassley collected about $225,000 for his corn and soybean farm from 1995-2005. His son took in about $654,000, records show. Neither ever got $250,000 in a year.

President Bush wants to end subsidies for anyone making more than $200,000 in adjusted gross income ? a formula that easily could capture members of Congress, who earn $165,000 per year in salary. Grassley says a payment cap is easier to get done.

Tester expressed support for the Grassley amendment, as did Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., whose father and brother are listed as some of his state's biggest subsidy recipients. Lincoln has opposed similar payment caps, as have the four House members whose families have received subsidies. "It puts my guys out of business," Lincoln said Monday.

Grassley, Brownback and Tester said they support a system of subsidies for small and medium-sized farmers to provide a safety net and protect the nation's food supply.

Only one subsidy recipient in Congress wants to dramatically pare direct payments to farmers: Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, whose family farm received $126,555 from 1995-2005.

Lugar backs a plan to cap federal farm payments at $30,000 a year.

Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark., says the system works well. He and his family's farming interests received almost $2.4 million in federal payments from 1995-2005, records show. His net worth in 2005 was $1.7 million to $6.6 million, according to his financial disclosure statement. "He has firsthand experience of how this really benefits farmers," said his spokeswoman, Angela Guyadeen.
Yep. I bet $2.4 million in payments over 10 years worked out real well for Rep. Berry. I got in the wrong racket.
If it's a racket you want, I suggest oil. Those $400 million dollar retirement packages on top of their $65 million dollar annual salaries are pretty hard to beat. :p
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Yeah, but you actually have to be recognized in that business. These guys hide their big subsidy payments under different names and company/partnership names and 99% of the country hasn't a clue.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Yeah, but you actually have to be recognized in that business. These guys hide their big subsidy payments under different names and company/partnership names and 99% of the country hasn't a clue.
Don't delude yourself, if it's so well hidden then how did they get these facts?

Take the guy from Montana. According to the article he got $232,000 in subsidies over a 10 year period. That's $23,200 per year to farm 1800 acres, or about $12.90 per acre. That would pay to spray the crops, but you still have to work the ground, buy the seed and fertilizer, plant it, harvest it and haul it to town. Then you still have to make your land payment and taxes.

And all to grow a crop that you don't even know if you will even be offered a breakeven price for... or even if you will get a crop worth harvesting.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Yeah, but they only listed a few of them. You can bet your ass there's a whole lot more. I believe they specifically mentioned that a lot of the payments are not tracked because they're made to partnerships and such with no direct link to a Congressman. (Unless you specifically knew of it.)

There's a whole lot of people making a whole lot of $$$ off it, a perfect example of waste.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
62,116
15,370
136
"There isn't one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country."
- Dwayne Andreas, Chairman, ADM
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,993
5,039
126
There was something on PBS about this. I think some dead people's estates are getting subsidies too.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Yep, they are. There was a lady's relatives in a nearby county that had collected nearly a million bucks and she's been dead for like a decade.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
There was something Dave Barry wrote about this a while ago, he had some pretty good examples too. I think my favorite was that, among other people, one big beneficiary of farm subsidies was Scotty Pippen.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
181
106
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Queasy
Link

WASHINGTON ? When the bill that would extend farm subsidies for five years goes to the Senate floor this week, eight senators will have special reason to pay close attention: They or their relatives collected about $3 million in federal payments from 1995 to 2005, according to government records compiled by a non-partisan environmental group.

They join four House members in a small group of lawmakers connected to farming operations that received a total of $6.2 million in subsidies over that period. Many say their experience with the programs has given them valuable insight into the issue.

"Without these programs, there are some years that we would have been in very, very dire straights," said Sen. Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat elected last year who farms 1,800 acres. Along with his wife, he received about $232,000 from 1995-2005, according to Department of Agriculture records gathered by the Environmental Working Group.

Congressional ethics rules allow members who get farm subsidies to vote on the bills that authorize them, on the grounds that the bills affect a general class of people. Some see a problem with that.

"Just because it's not a conflict of interest under the rules doesn't mean it isn't a conflict to a regular person looking at it," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the non-partisan Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. At the least, Sloan said, lawmakers should be required to publicly disclose when they vote to benefit themselves or their families as part of a small group.

Members of Congress must report sources of income totaling more than $200, but most get payments through partnerships or other entities, so it can be difficult to learn which ones receive the subsidies. Recipients are searchable by name on www.ewg.org, but, for example, payments to Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., are listed under her maiden name, Lambert, at a Virginia address near Washington.

Records show Lincoln and her family members collected $715,000 from 1995-2005, the most recent year complete data are available. She said she personally received less than $10,000 a year, and the subsidies ended in 2005 when her land was sold.

The proposed $283 billion, five-year Senate farm bill would preserve a system that pays 84% of subsidies to the biggest 20% of the farms, according to the working group, which supports caps on farm payments. Some agribusiness companies receive millions from taxpayers each year, even with crop prices at record levels.

One farmer-senator, Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa, plans to offer an amendment that would cap payments at $250,000 annually.

Grassley collected about $225,000 for his corn and soybean farm from 1995-2005. His son took in about $654,000, records show. Neither ever got $250,000 in a year.

President Bush wants to end subsidies for anyone making more than $200,000 in adjusted gross income ? a formula that easily could capture members of Congress, who earn $165,000 per year in salary. Grassley says a payment cap is easier to get done.

Tester expressed support for the Grassley amendment, as did Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., whose father and brother are listed as some of his state's biggest subsidy recipients. Lincoln has opposed similar payment caps, as have the four House members whose families have received subsidies. "It puts my guys out of business," Lincoln said Monday.

Grassley, Brownback and Tester said they support a system of subsidies for small and medium-sized farmers to provide a safety net and protect the nation's food supply.

Only one subsidy recipient in Congress wants to dramatically pare direct payments to farmers: Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, whose family farm received $126,555 from 1995-2005.

Lugar backs a plan to cap federal farm payments at $30,000 a year.

Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark., says the system works well. He and his family's farming interests received almost $2.4 million in federal payments from 1995-2005, records show. His net worth in 2005 was $1.7 million to $6.6 million, according to his financial disclosure statement. "He has firsthand experience of how this really benefits farmers," said his spokeswoman, Angela Guyadeen.
Yep. I bet $2.4 million in payments over 10 years worked out real well for Rep. Berry. I got in the wrong racket.
If it's a racket you want, I suggest oil. Those $400 million dollar retirement packages on top of their $65 million dollar annual salaries are pretty hard to beat. :p
I think subsidies should be mainly directed to small farmers, they suffer most from feast and famine.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Pabster
Yeah, but you actually have to be recognized in that business. These guys hide their big subsidy payments under different names and company/partnership names and 99% of the country hasn't a clue.
Don't delude yourself, if it's so well hidden then how did they get these facts?

Take the guy from Montana. According to the article he got $232,000 in subsidies over a 10 year period. That's $23,200 per year to farm 1800 acres, or about $12.90 per acre. That would pay to spray the crops, but you still have to work the ground, buy the seed and fertilizer, plant it, harvest it and haul it to town. Then you still have to make your land payment and taxes.

And all to grow a crop that you don't even know if you will even be offered a breakeven price for... or even if you will get a crop worth harvesting.
Sounds to me like there is an oversupply of farmers. Maybe he should find other work instead of relying on welfare from the state. I bet you are the first to line up and complain about other corporate welfare.

 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Pabster
Yeah, but you actually have to be recognized in that business. These guys hide their big subsidy payments under different names and company/partnership names and 99% of the country hasn't a clue.
Don't delude yourself, if it's so well hidden then how did they get these facts?

Take the guy from Montana. According to the article he got $232,000 in subsidies over a 10 year period. That's $23,200 per year to farm 1800 acres, or about $12.90 per acre. That would pay to spray the crops, but you still have to work the ground, buy the seed and fertilizer, plant it, harvest it and haul it to town. Then you still have to make your land payment and taxes.

And all to grow a crop that you don't even know if you will even be offered a breakeven price for... or even if you will get a crop worth harvesting.
Sounds to me like there is an oversupply of farmers. Maybe he should find other work instead of relying on welfare from the state. I bet you are the first to line up and complain about other corporate welfare.
Since you live in Iowa (if I remember correctly), I'd imagine you're well aware that most "farmers" are corporations these days?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Pabster
Yeah, but you actually have to be recognized in that business. These guys hide their big subsidy payments under different names and company/partnership names and 99% of the country hasn't a clue.
Don't delude yourself, if it's so well hidden then how did they get these facts?

Take the guy from Montana. According to the article he got $232,000 in subsidies over a 10 year period. That's $23,200 per year to farm 1800 acres, or about $12.90 per acre. That would pay to spray the crops, but you still have to work the ground, buy the seed and fertilizer, plant it, harvest it and haul it to town. Then you still have to make your land payment and taxes.

And all to grow a crop that you don't even know if you will even be offered a breakeven price for... or even if you will get a crop worth harvesting.
Sounds to me like there is an oversupply of farmers. Maybe he should find other work instead of relying on welfare from the state. I bet you are the first to line up and complain about other corporate welfare.
Since you live in Iowa (if I remember correctly), I'd imagine you're well aware that most "farmers" are corporations these days?
Close, MN, and yes I am aware and it shouldnt surprise us subsidies are big business.
But I was responding to a specific situation 1EZ mentioned.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Pabster
Yeah, but you actually have to be recognized in that business. These guys hide their big subsidy payments under different names and company/partnership names and 99% of the country hasn't a clue.
Don't delude yourself, if it's so well hidden then how did they get these facts?

Take the guy from Montana. According to the article he got $232,000 in subsidies over a 10 year period. That's $23,200 per year to farm 1800 acres, or about $12.90 per acre. That would pay to spray the crops, but you still have to work the ground, buy the seed and fertilizer, plant it, harvest it and haul it to town. Then you still have to make your land payment and taxes.

And all to grow a crop that you don't even know if you will even be offered a breakeven price for... or even if you will get a crop worth harvesting.
Sounds to me like there is an oversupply of farmers. Maybe he should find other work instead of relying on welfare from the state. I bet you are the first to line up and complain about other corporate welfare.
Since you live in Iowa (if I remember correctly), I'd imagine you're well aware that most "farmers" are corporations these days?
Close, MN, and yes I am aware and it shouldnt surprise us subsidies are big business.
But I was responding to a specific situation 1EZ mentioned.
Ah, well for that situation, I think you have a point. I'm as liberal as the next guy (or maybe more so :p), but I don't get farm subsidies, especially since they often pay for crops that we don't need more of or wouldn't be grown in a free market. The way corn and tobacco, in particular, are treated is just crazy.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Just another in a long list of business and govt being joined at the hip in this country. I went to the MN zoo last Spring. In the spring they have a mock farm setup with baby farm animals. Cute little things. Anyways they have a timeline of farming in the United States and it is nothing but a story board of govt intervention, regulation, and hand holding. I had to chuckle as it is clear govt and farming go hand in hand. The end result as you note it the govt paying farmers for crops the world doesnt require. I love the stories of the govt paying farmers to burn their crops. Can you imagine the uproar is the govt paid GM to scrap their cars? Somehow though the conversation has been twisted into the poor farmer and thus is off limits to criticism. Even though as you note the a large amount of farms are owned by mega corps.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Pabster
Yeah, but you actually have to be recognized in that business. These guys hide their big subsidy payments under different names and company/partnership names and 99% of the country hasn't a clue.
Don't delude yourself, if it's so well hidden then how did they get these facts?

Take the guy from Montana. According to the article he got $232,000 in subsidies over a 10 year period. That's $23,200 per year to farm 1800 acres, or about $12.90 per acre. That would pay to spray the crops, but you still have to work the ground, buy the seed and fertilizer, plant it, harvest it and haul it to town. Then you still have to make your land payment and taxes.

And all to grow a crop that you don't even know if you will even be offered a breakeven price for... or even if you will get a crop worth harvesting.
Sounds to me like there is an oversupply of farmers. Maybe he should find other work instead of relying on welfare from the state. I bet you are the first to line up and complain about other corporate welfare.
He has a second job, congressman. You just can't be pleased, can you. :laugh:

Maybe you should get off your lazy, whiney ass and start farming in your spare time, that's what I did for 20 years, 50+ hours a week at my job and work a 1000+ acre farm. It made for a great tax wirte-off back in the day before you could just put you money in a 401k or IRA. I think we should quit subsidizing you, why should your generation get such a sweetheart deal like that? Geesh, I can't believe the number of whiney ass, punk kids these days.:Disgust;
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87 Even though as you note the a large amount of farms are owned by mega corps.
And when all these coporations get large enough your cheap food days will be over. Medical care is high priced because when your sick and you hurt you don't care what it costs. Food is like that, when your hungry enough you won't care what you have to pay or do to get food in your belly...... and you get hungry a lot easier and more often then you get sick.

Just for note, the politicians have claimed they are going to limit subsides for years and have capped payments but they just keep leaving loopholes for the coporations to get around those caps, that's why you hear about dead people getting subsidy payments.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Give me the calander, I have to write this down. The righties are complaining about corporate greed.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Pabster
Yeah, but you actually have to be recognized in that business. These guys hide their big subsidy payments under different names and company/partnership names and 99% of the country hasn't a clue.
Don't delude yourself, if it's so well hidden then how did they get these facts?

Take the guy from Montana. According to the article he got $232,000 in subsidies over a 10 year period. That's $23,200 per year to farm 1800 acres, or about $12.90 per acre. That would pay to spray the crops, but you still have to work the ground, buy the seed and fertilizer, plant it, harvest it and haul it to town. Then you still have to make your land payment and taxes.

And all to grow a crop that you don't even know if you will even be offered a breakeven price for... or even if you will get a crop worth harvesting.
Sounds to me like there is an oversupply of farmers. Maybe he should find other work instead of relying on welfare from the state. I bet you are the first to line up and complain about other corporate welfare.
He has a second job, congressman. You just can't be pleased, can you. :laugh:

Maybe you should get off your lazy, whiney ass and start farming in your spare time, that's what I did for 20 years, 50+ hours a week at my job and work a 1000+ acre farm. It made for a great tax wirte-off back in the day before you could just put you money in a 401k or IRA. I think we should quit subsidizing you, why should your generation get such a sweetheart deal like that? Geesh, I can't believe the number of whiney ass, punk kids these days.:Disgust;
Now why the hell would I go into farming when it is clear there is an oversupply of farmers?
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Pabster
Yeah, but you actually have to be recognized in that business. These guys hide their big subsidy payments under different names and company/partnership names and 99% of the country hasn't a clue.
Don't delude yourself, if it's so well hidden then how did they get these facts?

Take the guy from Montana. According to the article he got $232,000 in subsidies over a 10 year period. That's $23,200 per year to farm 1800 acres, or about $12.90 per acre. That would pay to spray the crops, but you still have to work the ground, buy the seed and fertilizer, plant it, harvest it and haul it to town. Then you still have to make your land payment and taxes.

And all to grow a crop that you don't even know if you will even be offered a breakeven price for... or even if you will get a crop worth harvesting.
Sounds to me like there is an oversupply of farmers. Maybe he should find other work instead of relying on welfare from the state. I bet you are the first to line up and complain about other corporate welfare.
He has a second job, congressman. You just can't be pleased, can you. :laugh:

Maybe you should get off your lazy, whiney ass and start farming in your spare time, that's what I did for 20 years, 50+ hours a week at my job and work a 1000+ acre farm. It made for a great tax wirte-off back in the day before you could just put you money in a 401k or IRA. I think we should quit subsidizing you, why should your generation get such a sweetheart deal like that? Geesh, I can't believe the number of whiney ass, punk kids these days.:Disgust;
Now why the hell would I go into farming when it is clear there is an oversupply of farmers?
In other words you wouldn't want to get that close to any real work, you just want to piss and moan about somebody else.

Maybe you can explain to me why the long term trend for some time has been that the average age of farmers has been increasing while the number of farmers has been decreasing?

Farmers tend to work long past typical retirement age, survey finds

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. -- Did you hear the one about the retired farmer? If you did, you probably didn't hear it in Illinois.

Retirement is rarely practiced, according to a University of Illinois survey. Farmers just keep on farming.

The survey of 13 counties found that farmers are twice as likely to continue working beyond age 65 as are people of similar age doing other jobs.

"These farmers are not about to get off the tractor seat and relax in the rocking chair," said Andrew Sofranko, a professor in the department of human and community development.

"About 1,700 farmers responded to the survey, and 25 percent were 65 or older. Nationally, only 13 to 14 percent of workers 65 and over are still on the job."

Of the 25 percent of farmers 65 or older, the average age was 73. A third of the 25 percent were 75 years or older and have been farming an average of 46 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Average Age of Farmer by County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As the U.S. farm population has dwindled, the average age of farmers continues to rise. In fact, about forty percent of the farmers in this country are 55 years old or older (Bureau of Labor Statistics). The graying of the farm population has led to concerns about the long-term health of family farms as an American institution.
Ag 101 Demographics
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY