Some states refuse bipartisan aid for school summer lunches; program gives eligible students $40 per month

Some states won't accept aid for summer lunches.
(Photo by Matthew Moloney, Unsplash)

Some states have refused federal support that would be used to provide summer lunch money to families with children who receive free or reduced lunches during the school year.  

"The new $2.5 billion program, known as Summer EBT, passed Congress with bipartisan support. The program will provide families with about $40 a month for every child who receives free or reduced-price meals at school — $120 for the summer," reports Madeline Cass of The New York Times. "The red-state refusals will keep aid from about 10 million children, about a third of those potentially eligible nationwide."

Why would a state governor turn down federal summer lunch money but accept funding while school is in session? Their reasons varied from summer lunches contributing to childhood obesity to insisting that free summer lunches were only part of pandemic aid. Cass writes, "Poor states are especially resistant, though the federal government bears most of the cost. Of the 10 states with the highest levels of children's food insecurity, five rejected Summer EBT: Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas."

In deep-red Arkansas, Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders welcomed the federal provision. "'Making sure no Arkansan goes hungry, especially children, is a top concern for my administration,' she said in a news release," Cass reports. "Arkansas officials estimate the program will cost the state about $3 million and deliver $45 million in benefits."

Early this year, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told The Associated Press: "No child in this country should go hungry. They certainly shouldn't go hungry because they lose access to nutritious school meals during the summer months."

But a look at Summer EBT division doesn't bear that sentiment out. Cass explains, "The outcome illuminates the arbitrary nature of the American safety net, which prioritizes local control. North Dakota and North Carolina are in; South Dakota and South Carolina are out. . . .  In the impoverished Mississippi Delta, eligibility depends on which side of the Mississippi River a child lives."

Don't separate food benefits from agricultural spending in next Farm Bill, American Farm Bureau Federation says

Congress is expected to begin work on the next Farm Bill early next year, and Republicans appear likely to be in control of the House. Expecting conservatives to bring up their past wish that Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits be separated from agricultural spending, the largest farm lobby again rejected that idea when it announced its priorities for the bill last week, Chuck Abbott reports for Successful Farming. 

Vincent "Zippy" Duvall, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, said "It makes perfect sense" to combine SNAP benefits with agricultural supports in the same bill, Abbott reports. The 2014 and 2018 farm bills were delayed "by attempts by conservative Republicans to slash SNAP spending and expand the program’s work requirements." Some conservative think tanks have argued for separating SNAP and farm benefits into separate bills. "Proponents say it would be easier to revamp SNAP that way; other analysts say the approach could put farm programs in peril. Only a small fraction of Americans live on the land," Abbott writes.

"This unified approach has the benefit of bringing farm advocates together with anti-hunger advocates, and it’s the right approach to take," Duvall said. The 2018 Farm Bill is set to expire this fall and SNAP accounts for at least three-fourths of its spending. SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, will cost $1.1 trillion over the next decade while mandatory farm programs will cost $168 billion, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

Provision in Democrats' big spending bill has up to $1 billion over five years to subsidize local journalists' salaries

"As the $3.5 trillion federal spending bill slowly makes its way through the House and Senate budget reconciliation process, tucked inside is as much as $1 billion to help local journalism," Rick Edmonds reports for The Poynter Institute. "Specifically, lawmakers have picked up on one of three provisions of the proposed Local Journalism Sustainability Act — a payroll tax credit for journalists employed by local newspapers, digital-only sites or broadcast outlets. The government would subsidize half of salaries up to $50,000 the first year and 30% for four subsequent years."

It's unclear whether the provision will stay in the package, but if passed, it could provide a "life-saving infusing of cash" for struggling newsrooms. It's still unclear who will be eligible for the funding, but "right now, things look good," says Dean Ridings, CEO of America's Newspapers, which has been lobbying for the bill for more than a year. He told Edmonds that the bill has bipartisan House support, but no formal support among Senate Republicans. However, moderate Senate Democrats Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona signed on as co-sponsors earlier this month.

"A tough two years make a powerful case that now is the time to break with the long tradition that journalism should be financially independent of the government. Newspaper advertising has been in steep decline for years. Then came the Covid-19 recession of 2020 and some fresh hits to the remaining ad base as the delta strain emerged in the U.S. this summer," Edmonds writes. "The financial pressure is not as intense on other parts of the local news ecosystem, but all could get a huge boost if their news payroll gets a subsidy. The act provides a strong incentive to keep news staff intact — and even to expand it, since new hires would also qualify for the payroll tax credit."

Biden to unveil $2.25 trillion infrastructure plan today with plenty of rural resonance

President Biden will introduce a $2.25 trillion jobs-and-infrastructure package today in Pittsburgh. More details on the American Jobs Plan will be available later—and rural interests will be looking closely to see what’s in it for them—but the broad strokes are known. Click here for a breakdown.

"Biden’s plan will include approximately $650 billion to rebuild the country’s infrastructure, such as its roads, bridges, highways and ports," The Washington Post reports. "The plan will also include in the range of $400 billion toward home care for the elderly and the disabled, $300 billion for housing infrastructure and $300 billion to revive U.S. manufacturing."

The plan also includes $100 billion for broadband, $100 billion for public schools, $25 billion for child-care facilities, $18 billion for veterans' hospitals, $111 billion for water infrastructure, and $12 billion for community colleges, Alicia Parlapiano reports for The New York Times. Of the $115 billion earmarked for roads and bridges, the plan calls for modernizing 20,000 miles of roads and highways and repairing 10,000 smaller bridges. On top of the $2.25 trillion in new spending, the plan will include about $400 billion in clean-energy credits.

The eight-year plan would be paid for by 15 years of increased corporate taxes to avoid deficit spending, Jim Tankersley and Emily Cochrane report for the Times. The Republican Congress and President Trump cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21%. Biden would make it 28% and have rules meant to make multinational corporations to pay more tax on profits they earn and book overseas.

The plan "forms one part of the 'Build Back Better' agenda that the administration aims to introduce. [Press Secretary Jen] Psaki has said the administration within weeks will introduce a second legislative package," the Post reports. "That second package is expected to include an expansion in health insurance coverage, an extension of the expanded child tax benefit, and paid family and medical leave, among other efforts aimed at families."

Federal Reserve: Electric co-ops, wireless systems and partnerships most promising ways to better rural broadband

Broadband access is transformative, but rural areas still lag because they're more costly to serve. It's worth it, though, according to a recent report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.

"The economic case for rural broadband infrastructure, though, is compelling despite its cost: Broadband access and adoption in rural areas is linked to increased job and population growth, higher rates of new business formation and home values, and lower unemployment rates," Alexander Marré reports. "Unlike with many other types of infrastructure, the long-run benefits of broadband access could grow exponentially, given the potential for innovation and productivity gains it provides."

Electric cooperatives, fixed satellite and wireless providers, and public-private partnerships are the most promising avenues for building out quality broadband in rural America, according to the report. But each approach has its pitfalls. Some states bar co-ops from providing broadband, and legal issues can make it tricky for co-ops to operate outside their service areass. Satellite and wireless don't require expensive house-to-house fiber installation, but can be slower and more expensive. Public-private partnerships are useful where there is no interested provider, but it can be challenging to build the right partnership with effective, interested parties. 

Connecting all of rural America to broadband will cost at least $85.6 billion, but current federal funding is about $30 billion, Marré reports. The Federal Communications Commission's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund is the largest source of funding, at $20.4 billion over 10 years. However, the RDOF has been plagued with faulty data maps that can waste money. The FCC also provides $4.9 billion through its Alternative Connect America Fund. The second-largest source of departmental funding is through the Agriculture Department's eConnectivity Pilot Program, or ReConnect Program, which provides loans, grants, and loan/grant combos to broadband service providers. ReConnect has distributed more than $1.3 billion; all told, USDA funds about $2.3 billion for broadband buildout through ReConnect and other Rural Utilities Service programs. Other major sources of funding include state spending (less than $2 billion in 2018-2019) and the CARES Act, which allocated about $600 million to broadband funding projects.

The report notes that the coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the necessity of broadband for all, and recommends increasing federal subsidies to help close the rural gap. 

Food and farm workers need food, despite federal farm aid

President Trump has given farmers record amounts of pandemic relief, but many farmworkers, food-processing workers, and small family farmers need food assistance, according to dozens of food banks nationwide; meanwhile, hunger is rising in the U.S., particularly in states with a high proportion of rural residents, Christopher Walljasper and Gabriela Bhaskar report for Reuters.

"The Trump administration has paid farmers nearly $18 billion in direct payments since June through its Coronavirus Food Assistance Program, but nearly 92 percent of farmers in Wisconsin received less aid than it costs to run an average dairy in the state for a month," Reuters reports. "More than 54 million people in the United States could struggle to afford food during the pandemic, with the biggest increases in food insecurity in North Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin, according to Feeding America, a network of 60,000 U.S. food shelters."

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said the CFAP is meant to keep food on Americans' tables, but Reuters says much of the aid isn't reaching farmworkers, since the program doesn't stipulate that.

"The agriculture department has distributed 9.5 million food boxes since June under a program meant to funnel food quickly to those who need it, but food pantry workers say it will not be enough," Walljasper and Bhaskar report. "Weekly survey data from the U.S. Census Bureau and an annual study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture show that hunger is rising, particularly in rural states, after a decade of decline. By late September, Vermont, West Virginia and North Dakota topped the Bureau’s list, with a more than 50% increase in respondents saying they lacked enough to eat."

New nonprofit argues that Trump has hurt rural America

Chris Gibbs

A new political non-profit launched Monday, Rural 2020, plans to advertise in battleground states to advocate policies it believes will benefit agriculture and rural Americans, and attempt to convince voters that the Trump administration has hurt rural America. It plans to build community coalitions in battleground states, and has a radio ad.

Chris Gibbs, an Ohio soybean farmer and former official of the Farm Service Agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, founded the organization and chairs it. Gibbs says he is a former Trump voter and former Republican who unsuccessfully ran as an independent against Rep. Jim Jordan, a Trump acolyte. "I knew we were in trouble when the president said trade wars are good and easy to win," Gibbs said in a statement. "Lost trade opportunities, dwindling health-care providers, rural hospital closures, below cost of production prices for commodities and livestock, collapse of the biofuel market, bankruptcies, and suicides all plagued rural America well before covid-19. The uncoordinated response of the Trump administration to the pandemic has upended traditional food supply chains and only made things worse for our dairy, livestock, and fresh produce farmers."

Senators urge FCC to make more rural areas eligible for broadband subsidy program, use better data for decisions

On March 9, two dozen senators published an open letter urging Federal Communications Commission chair Ajit Pai to ensure that federal funding for rural broadband expansion will reach the communities that need it most, Makena Kelly reports for The Verge. Most of the senators were Democrats or independents who caucus with Democrats, but one Republican, Cory Gardner of Colorado, also signed the letter.

The agency announced the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund in late January as a replacement for the Connect America Fund. The RDOF will give out $20.4 billion in subsidies for broadband network construction over the next decade, but, according to the senators' letter, communities that have already received funding through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's ReConnect program or state broadband programs won't be eligible, Kelly reports.

Pai did not respond directly to the letter, but said at a Senate Appropriations Committeee hearing Tuesday that he did not want FCC funding to go to companies that had already received funding elsewhere. "The Democratic commissioners suggested that the maps should be fixed before the RDOF auctions move forward," Kelly reports. "Republican commissioners like Pai and Brendan Carr agreed that the maps need updating, but claim that they have enough data identifying wholly unserved communities to proceed with RDOF in those areas before the maps are fixed." The FCC has been criticized for relying on maps that overstate broadband coverage. Some state agencies are trying to create their own coverage maps to gain better access to rural funding.

The letter echoes an open letter to Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue published in late February. A bipartisan group of senators called on the USDA to make more communities eligible for its ReConnect program, since areas could not qualify that had already received money from the FCC.

Giant telecoms fighting requirements to provide higher broadband speeds under new rural subsidy program

Lobbyists for huge telecommunications companies such as AT&T, Verizon, and Windstream are fighting a proposed rule that would require telecoms to provide higher internet speeds in order to qualify for a rural broadband subsidy, Jon Brodkin reports for Ars Technica.

The Federal Communications Commission announced in December that it would scrap the 4G LTE rural subsidy plan and instead launch a $9 billion fund to bring 5G to rural areas. The 5G plan, called the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, plans to offer three tiers: a baseline tier with 25 megabytes per second download speed and 3 Mbps upload, an "above-baseline" tier with 100 Mbps down and 20 Mbps up, and a "gigabit performance" tier with 1Gbps down and 50 Mbps up, Brodkin reports.

Though most ISPs seem fine with the requirements for the bottom and top tiers, "it's the above-baseline tier of 100Mbps/20Mbps that providers object to," Brodkin reports. "They either want the FCC to lower that tier's upload speeds or create an additional tier that would be faster than baseline but slower than above-baseline. Companies pushing lower standards are trying to ensure that ISPs offering much slower speeds can get a large slice of that federal funding without making significant network upgrades."

According to a Dec. 23 comment filed with the FCC, the lobbying group USTelecom and other major telecoms proposed that the above-baseline tier's upload target should be 10 Mbps instead of 20 Mbps. They said that 20 Mbps upload speeds wouldn't benefit rural consumers much, and would make a negligible difference in HD streaming, video conferencing and gaming. They also said that lowering the target speed would incentivize telecoms to build out additional broadband and would save the rural subsidy fund money. However, Brodkin notes that the argument doesn't hold water, since advertised broadband speeds are "basically the best-case scenario" and consumers often see much slower speeds.

The Dec. 23 filing is the latest in a flurry of such filings. In October, AT&T filed a request for a slower tier of 50/6 Mbps up, and essentially advised "that the FCC should direct a larger share of the rural funding toward ISPs offering slower speeds," Brodkin reports. On Dec. 13, AT&T and other ISPs requested a new tier with 50/5 Mbps speeds and urged the FCC to prioritize lower-speed tiers. Such speeds would be a step back from what the 4G LTE program usually funds; more than half of the funds awarded are for 100/20 Mbps projects.

Notably, two groups representing smaller internet service providers (the Rural Broadband Association and ACA Connects) urged the FCC to reject proposals to lower speeds in a filing on Dec. 6, Brodkin reports.

The differing proposals reflect a schism in rural broadband providers: rural telephone and electric cooperatives are responsible for building out almost three-quarters of the fast fiber-optic broadband in the rural U.S., but the much slower Digital Subscriber Line broadband service, which transfers internet signals via existing telephone lines, remains the most common type of rural internet service. One big reason: big telecoms companies lobbied for and won major federal contracts to build rural broadband, then saved money by using the slower DSL technology instead of laying fiber-optic cable.

WTO deal to scrap agricultural export subsidies; critics say it benefits India, China

On Saturday in Nairobi the World Trade Organization agreed "to eliminate some $15 billion of subsidies on exported produce from milk to sugar and rice," a decision that "could level the playing field for farmers who don’t currently benefit from much government help, while raising the stakes for producers elsewhere who do," Lucy Craymer reports for The Wall Street Journal. "The agreement requires developed countries to eliminate subsidies starting Jan. 1, with the exception of some dairy, pork and processed products. Developing countries have until the end of 2018." (WSJ graphic)

"Export subsidies include any form of financial aid or support given by a government to a firm involved in exporting agricultural products," Craymer writes. "Opponents of subsidies say farmers in countries without them trade at a disadvantage in the global marketplace. The issue had been on the WTO’s list of unfinished business: An agreement in 2005 to end all agricultural export subsidies by 2013 never came to fruition."

Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), the House Agriculture Committee Chairman, expressed concern Monday over the decision, "saying it provides a big exception for developing countries like China and India," Jenny Hopkinson reports for Politico. Conaway "said he was worried 'that the agreement allows developing countries to continue to use export subsidies for transportation and marketing for another 8 years even though the U.S. has held the position that the authority of countries to offer these sorts of subsidies expired back in 2004.'"

American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman said that the WTO deal "will 'strengthen U.S. agriculture’s ability to pursue market opportunities in international trade.'" He said,  “The measures adopted on food aid also will support U.S. programs that continue to provide food assistance around the world."

Oil and gas industry getting hidden subsidies, study says; industry official says data misinterpreted

A study by the environmental group Friends of the Earth that focused on the oil and gas industry in North Dakota found that the "royalty-free flaring of natural gas from wells on public and tribal lands amounts to a hidden federal subsidy worth tens of millions of dollars," Phil McKenna reports for InsideClimate News. "But one of the biggest producers of oil in the state, Continental Resources, Inc., challenged the findings, suggesting that the research overstated the volumes of hydrocarbons being burned at wells." Jeff Hume, vice chairman of strategic growth initiatives, told McKenna, "They have obtained flare volume reports which are accurate, [but] what they don’t realize is the majority of gas that is reported as flared is inert gas, not hydrocarbons."

The study found that "over a six-year period, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management subsidized the burning of $524 million of natural gas by oil and gas companies operating on public and tribal lands in North Dakota," McKenna writes. "Federal regulations allow oil companies to flare gas without paying royalties if it is the only way they can economically extract oil from a well, Ross said. The companies in the North Dakota study flared 107 billion cubic feet of natural gas from 2007 to 2013, the study found. The carbon dioxide emissions from this were equal to the annual output of more than 1.3 million cars, according to the report. This royalty-free flaring resulted in a $66 million subsidy over the six years of the study for oil and gas companies in North Dakota, the report found."

Oklahoma City-based Continental Resources officials countered that "the study overstated the company’s share of flared methane or other hydrocarbons," McKenna writes. Of the 55 billion cubic feet of gas that Friends of the Earth reported as hydrocarbons flared by Continental Resources in North Dakota, Hume said "more than 53.4 of it, or more than 97 percent, was carbon dioxide or nitrogen from enhanced oil recovery operations outside the Bakken formation in Bowman and Slope counties." (Read more)

Farm Bill programs leading to bigger subsidies than previously predicted

A program in the Farm Bill called Agricultural Risk Coverage is having much higher participation than previously thought, leading to projections from the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri that the program's cost will increase $1.7 billion, or 81 percent, above what the organization had predicted for the 2015-16 marketing year, David Rogers reports for Politico.

Another report, by the Congressional Budget Office, "shows total payments to corn and soybean producers from ARC alone will be $3.37 billion in fiscal 2017—when the big subsidies come due for the government," Rogers writes. "That is 38 percent higher than what this sector collected in 2014 under the old system of direct cash payments to producers."

"In the case of corn and soybeans, CBO is projecting most producers will go in the direction of ARC, but thousands will opt for PLC (Price Loss Coverage) instead, accounting for another $1.47 billion in costs in fiscal 2017," Rogers writes. "When added to the ARC subsidies, the corn and beans sector is expected then to receive a total of $4.8 billion in government payments in fiscal 2017. That’s nearly double what the direct payments were for these two crops in 2014." (Read more)

Health-insurance costs on exchanges still vary by region, despite subsidies designed to equalize

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, health-insurance costs vary from region to region and state to state, and federal subsidies won't remove all of the differences, Christopher Snowbeck and MaryJo Webster write for the St. Paul Pioneer Press. They looked at data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and state-run health insurance exchanges and developed an interactive map showing costs of coverage for different ages and incomes, click here.

In cities such as Minneapolis, Pittsburgh and Tucson, where insurance prices are low, fewer tax credits are necessary. A greater number of federal subsidies will be needed in places with high premiums, such as rural areas of the South. "Because there is so much geographic variation in cost, the government does have to pitch in a larger portion of premium in higher-cost areas to make coverage affordable," said Cynthia Cox, a researcher at the California-based Kaiser Family Foundation.

Though some people feel that the law is unfair and that they don't receive the tax credits as high as in other areas, the ACA exists to ensure that "people at certain income levels pay no more than a set share of income to buy the midlevel 'benchmark' health plan where they live," Snowbeck and Webster write. Some variation in price disappeared, though, because insurance companies can no longer refuse to cover people who have pre-existing health conditions, said Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who helped craft the reform law.

Coverage prices are different in some areas because of factors such as competition among insurance companies, health status and cost-of-living. However, though the same plan goes for $170 per month in Pittsburgh and $450 in rural areas of Colorado and Georgia, federal subsidies based on income bring the cost under $300. That say to potential purchasers,, "It's now in the achievable range," Tracy Brosius of the Wyoming Institute of Population Health, told the Pioneer Press.

Sometimes the tax-credit system actually allows people in higher-cost cities to pay less than those from lower-cost areas. "Assessing which consumers wind up with the 'better deals' can be complicated, policy experts say, because the lowest-cost silver plans available in different regions likely have different coverage details, such as deductibles and networks of doctors and hospitals," Snowbeck and Webster write. Though some of argued that the new system doesn't offer incentives for regions that more effectively provide health care, Cox said "Insurers still have a financial incentive to keep premiums low to attract enrollees, particularly young enrollees who might not be tax-credit eligible." (Read more)

Obama's budget would cut crop insurance, boost research and rural broadband, help bees

UPDATE, March 6: The budget proposal also includes cuts in development and housing programs, "including nearly $160 million in cuts to Water/Wastewater grants, $66 million less for Rural Business programs, and $38 million in cuts to Rural Housing programs," and $93. million in cuts to the the U.S. Department of Agriculture's poultry inspection program, reports the Daily Yonder. (Read more)

The recently passed Farm Bill increased investments in crop insurance by $5.7 billion, but President Obama's $3.9 trillion fiscal 2015 budget proposal released Tuesday calls for the program to be cut by about $14 billion over 10 years. "The bill also contains language restricting the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s ability to make future budget cuts in crop insurance," reports Agri-Pulse, a Washington newsletter.  The government pays $3 billion per year "for the private insurance companies to administer and underwrite the program and $6 billion per year in premium subsidies to the farmers."

USDA's proposed budget of $23.7 billion in discretionary spending would be $938 million less than its current funding, but it includes more money fro rural broadband and "the creation of three agricultural research institutes dedicated to crop science, advanced bio-based manufacturing and anti-microbial resistance research," costing $75 million, Lisa Rein reports for The Washington Post.

Agri-Pulse reports the proposal also:
• Has $50 million "to enhance research through public-private grants, strengthen pollinator habitat in core areas, double the number of acres in the Conservation Reserve Program that are dedicated to pollinator health and increase funding for surveys to determine the impacts on pollinator losses."
• Has "$58 million for a new economic-development grant program designed to target small and emerging private businesses and cooperatives in rural areas."
• "Supports direct and guaranteed loans to assist 40,000 producers, 85 percent of which will be beginning farmers and ranchers and socially disadvantaged producers."
• "Provides an increase of $12 million to reduce waste, fraud and abuse in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program," better known as food stamps, the big-ticket item in any Farm Bill.

Agri-Pulse is subscription only, but a free trial is available by clicking here. To read a statement by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on the budget proposal, click here.

Poorer counties have fewer options for health insurers, making their premiums higher

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is making health insurance more affordable for millions of Americans, but leaves it still out of reach of millions more. Perversely, that is more likely to be true in poorer counties, according to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal of the 36 states using the federal health-insurance exchange.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans in 515 lower-income counties in 15 states have only one option in the exchange, and the lack of competition forces them to pay high premiums, Timothy W. Martin and Christopher Weaver write for the Journal. In 80 percent of those counties, the only insurer is an affiliate of Blue Cross & Blue Shield. For the Journal's interactive, county-by-county database, click here.

"Residents of wealthier, more populated counties in the U.S. receive lower-priced choices than those living in counties with a single insurer," Martin and Weaver report. In counties with one insurer, the average price for a 50-year-old to purchase a silver plan, the one most commonly sold, through the marketplace was $406. In contrast, citizens in counties with four insurers could purchase a silver plan for an average of $329. This phenomena represents the tactics of insurers who avoid areas with unemployment problems and high numbers of unhealthy residents, the reporters write.

For example, Aetna Inc. and UnitedHealth Group Inc. offer services "in more counties outside of the marketplaces, where plans are sold directly to consumers and federal subsidies aren't available," they write. Rebecca Stephens found out that she only had one health insurer option in Hardee County, Florida, and the plan she wanted to purchase would cost her approximately $200 more per month than a comparable plan in Tampa. "That is costs me more for health insurance than someone in Tampa doesn't seem equal to me," she told the Journal.

Coverage prices were higher in rural places even before health reform. Jon Urbanek, a senior vice president at Florida Blue, cited shortage of hospitals and doctors as a key reason for the higher premiums. "Our costs are higher," he said. "The premiums we charge reflect the cost of the providers." People in smaller cities and suburbs, too, are often limited to fewer choices and subject to higher prices. "From a consumer's standpoint, it's unfair," said Dylan Roby, a program director at UCLA's health policy research center.

Glenn Melnick, a health-care economist at RAND Corp., thinks areas with low populations will not easily attract additional insurers. "I don't think the health law can overcome those economics," he said. The Congressional Budget Office reported that approximately 20 million Americans can get income-based tax credits to reduce health insurance costs; some brokers and insurers think these subsidies will negate the price disparities for some people. Russell Childers, an insurance broker from Americus, Ga., told the Journal, "Most people are receiving a high enough subsidy for coverage that they don't care." (Read more)

Billionaires continue to receive farm subsidies, but few since 2008; legislation would tighten rules

UPDATE, Nov. 8: Chris Clayton of DTN/The Progressive Farmer points out the long time frame used by EWG and writes, "Since 2008, only two or three of the farms owned by billionaires had received any farm payments at all. I scanned through the list of 50 billionaire farms provided by EWG and found two farms that collectively received $185,000 total. Thus, since the last farm bill was passed, 48 of those farms owned by billionaires had not received anything. Now, clearly someone slipped through the cracks on the $185,000, but that's not $11 million. The lion's share of that $11 million goes back to the 1990s when the federal government operated more like an ATM machine." (Read more)

"The federal government paid $11.3 million in taxpayer-funded farm subsidies from 1995 to 2012 to 50 billionaires or businesses in which they have some form of ownership, according to a report released Thursday by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based research organization," Ron Nixon reports for The New York Times. EWG "said its findings were likely to underestimate the total farm subsidies that went to the billionaires on the Forbes 400 list because many of them also received crop insurance subsidies. Federal law prohibits the disclosure of the names of individuals who get crop insurance subsidies."

"The report is being issued as members of the House and Senate are meeting to come up with a new five-year Farm Bill," Nixon notes. "The authors of the report said it is timely, given that lawmakers are debating a House proposal that would cut nearly $40 billion over 10 years from the food-stamp program, which helps provide food for nearly 47 million people. A Senate provision would cut $4.5 billion over the same period." Scott Faber, EWG's vice president for government affairs, told Nixon, "The irony is that farm subsidies are going to billionaires at the same time that there are proposals to kick three to five million people off of food stamps. This clearly highlights the need for reform to our farm programs.” (Read more)

The Times did not mention that the House and Senate have both passed legislation requiring "individuals to 'make a significant contribution of personal labor' to a farm in order to receive benefits," Phillip Swarts reports for The Washington Times. Daren Bakst, an agricultural policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, told Swarts, “It’s a change that’s long overdue. It’s been an abuse that’s existed that’s allowed people who really have no role in farming to get payments.”

Part of the confusion involves the wording of who receives subsidies and how it is interpreted. "The money went to support not only farm workers but also managers. Yet the definition of what qualified as 'management' was too broad, according to the Government Accountability Office, Congress's chief watchdog arm," Swarts writes. "The Farm Service Agency that oversees the funding had difficulty determining 'whether an individual had made a significant contribution of active personal management, potentially allowing individuals who may have had limited involvement in a farming operation to receive payments,' GAO said." Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a release, “The loophole has been allowed to stand for too long. It’s time to close it once and for all and put the issue to rest so we can maintain a safety net for the farmers who really need it." (Read more)

Farm subsidies not necessary, should be eliminated to cut federal deficit, economic columnist says

"Symbolic of the debate we're not having about government's size and role, the essence of the deficit problem, is the future of farm subsidies," writes economic columnist Robert Samuelson of The Washington Post. Subsidies cost the federal government about $10 to $15 billion a year, but "don't do much good," Samuelson contends. He says they don't help small farmers, and farm income is at record highs without subsidies.

Farm subsidies were created in the 1930s as a response to instability caused by floods, droughts, pests and market swings, but Samuelson says this is no longer the case for farmers, whose jobs have been vastly improved and made more efficient and reliable by technological advances. "Government support for agricultural research and food safety can be justified. But direct subsidies to farmers can't," Samuelson writes. He says subsidies qualify as "low hanging fruit" in cutting spending, but "what's instructive is that no one is doing it."

Instead, he writes, Congress plays a "shell game" of retiring subsidies when they aren't effective and replacing them with similar programs under different names. "In Congress, ending subsidies is unthinkable," Samuelson writes. The Senate's version of a new Farm Bill would end direct payments to farmers, but the combined cost of direct subsidies and crop insurance would still average about $14 billion annually from 2013 to 2022, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Meanwhile, no one is asking whether or not these programs would be created today or why there's a need to subsidize farmers who are making record profits, Samuelson says.

Farm subsidies are a leading indicator of Washington's larger problem, Samuelson says: "We no longer have the luxury of carrying marginal, ineffectual or wasteful programs. We can no longer afford subsidies for those who don't need them or, at least, don't need so many of them. . . . If we can't eliminate the least valuable spending, then we will be condemned to perpetually large deficits, huge tax increases or indiscriminate cuts in many federal programs, the good as well as the bad." (Read more)

Wind energy installations could stop if federal tax break isn't renewed

Installations of new wind turbines could stop without renewal of an energy-production tax credit that expires at the end of the year, according to the American Wind Energy Association. Some wind-energy installations have already shut down, and there will likely be a rush to complete projects before the cut-off date, Matthew Wald of The New York Times reports.

The importance of subsidies is highlighted in the Shepherds Flat wind farm in north-central Oregon (Department of Energy photo), which officially opened Saturday. The $1.9 billion project was financed with a $1.3 billion federal loan. Wind was one of the largest recipients of federal subsidies for electricity production in 2007, receiving much more than coal or  natural gas.

Extension of the wind subsidy is unclear. Congress did not act to extend it before it recessed for the election season, and it's unlikely it will be discussed during the lame-duck session after the election. (Read more)

Delaware, Maryland entice and train young farmers with grants and no-interest loans

Cara and Philip Sylvester, on their farm
in Delaware (State photo)

Two states have recently introduced programs that make it easier for young people to start farming.

In Maryland's Montgomery County, this month County Executive Isiah Leggett announced an initiative that will train young farmers and place them on privately owned land to grow sustainable crops and livestock for five years or more. The Washington Post reports that county officials hope to approve five to 10 participants this winter and prepare them to farm in the spring. Funded by a federal Small Business Administration grant, the New Farmer Pilot Project aims to help build small farms at a time when the county is struggling to preserve farming. (Read more)

In Delware, 10 young farm families and individuals are on their way to owning their dreams with help from an economic development program designed to boost agribusiness in The First State. The farmers from Kent and Sussex counties all received help purchasing land – nearly 900 acres total – from the Delaware Young Farmers Program, marking its first year. The no-interest loan program was launched in July 2011 by Gov. Jack Markell as a way to reduce the capital investment for young people looking to set up agribusiness operations. It was funded through $3 million in the fiscal 2012 budget. (Read more)

Oregon county lets 39 jail inmates go free when timber revenue and subsequent subsidies run out

The sheriff's office of Josephine County, Ore., released 39 of its jail inmates this week because the county just couldn't pay for their upkeep anymore. The "funding predicament" reported by Undersheriff  Don Fasching was due to a sharp drop in the county's share of federal timber revenue due to logging cutbacks in national forests to protect northern spotted owl and salmon and because voters turned down a $12 million levy to fill the gap left by the government-provided subsidy's expiration of that revenue which ran out last year.

Undersheriff Fasching said those inmates released were in jail for drug crimes, minor assaults, burglary, identity theft and probation violation. Jail Commander Vicki Smith said, "We did keep the worst of the worst." Fasching added, "We are concerned for public safety." Applications for gun permits have skyrocketed, according to the Associated Press.

The AP also reports sheriff's patrols, the district attorney's office, parole and probation supervision and juvenile justice departments all face similar cuts as budgets need to be balanced countywide. Klamath and Lane counties in Oregon have done likewise.