Any support package should be needs-based, they argue
Seven organizations put its names on a letter to Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Luke Lindberg, the under secretary for trade and foreign agricultural affairs, about how any upcoming support for farmers should be distributed.
The R Street Institute, Farm Action Fund, Land Core, National Taxpayers Union, Soil & Climate Alliance, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and Taxpayer Protection Alliance don’t completely see the need for emergency funds.
“Our organizations reflect a diverse array of policy and political approaches to the essential role of the agriculture industry and we do not necessarily agree on the underlying need for emergency spending in this situation,” the write.
But if the USDA is going to provide payments, “it should target funds based on need—using clear, accurate eligibility and economic data—and do so in a fully transparent manner,” the groups said in their Nov. 24 letter.
Secretary Rollins previously stated any support for producers could come in early December.
This could include funding related to the Market Facilitation Program (MFP), which provided payments in 2018 and 2019 to farmers affected by trade conflicts.
But available data indicates some money is being spent wastefully.
Data from 2022 showed “deficiencies in the data used to evaluate program eligibility leading to $800 million in improper payments,” the groups said in their letter, adding the USDA should maintain oversights to prevent similar issues.
In addition, the groups want the MFP to only be administered to working farmers.
The current definition leaves too much grey area, “leaving a large loophole for absent landowners or passive investors,” the groups wrote.