“I would say 90 percent, maybe as much as 95 percent, of our borrowers have some type of crop insurance. You can’t go out there and borrow half a million, three-quarter million dollars and not cover yourself,” said Kreg D. Denton, senior vice president of First Community Bank in western Kentucky. He’s concerned that if farmers are required to pay more for insurance, some will control costs by buying less coverage, putting them at greater financial risk.
But critics say the 2000 insurance overhaul, the Agricultural Risk Protection Act (PL 106-224), was a flop when it comes to saving taxpayers money. They say it encourages farmers to plow up grasslands and plant crops on riskier acreage, knowing that most of the potential revenue is insured.
Bruce Babcock, an economist at Iowa State University, estimates taxpayers could save $4.2 billion a year if premium subsidies were rolled back to pre-2000 rates. It would be cheaper for the government to give farmers a no-premium, 65 percent policy, a coverage level similar to traditional disaster assistance, than to maintain the current system, he said.
Other critics, who worry that many farmers may drop out of traditional subsidy programs and rely only on crop insurance, are urging Congress to cap premium subsidies for wealthy farmers and to require farmers to control erosion on highly erodible land. Conventional subsidies already are subject to means testing and conservation requirements, but insurance is not.
The rival farm bills that the Senate passed and the House Agriculture Committee approved last year both would have expanded the crop insurance program, using savings from eliminating the $5 billion in annual direct payments that are now given to grain and cotton growers. Among other things, the bills would have provided for new subsidized policies to cover revenue losses not covered by conventional insurance.
Many farmers, like bankers, argue that it’s critical to maintain the premium subsidies.
Bing Von Bergen, a wheat and barley grower who has been farming in Montana for 33 years, said at a recent crop insurance conference that the subsidized policies are especially important to young farmers. “It’s still critical for me for my operation, but sometimes the biggest critics of federal crop insurance don’t realize that it will be more detrimental to the young farmers” if the program is cut.
Curt Friesen, a corn and soybean grower in Nebraska, is looking forward to his son-in-law’s return to farming, and he will have to have the insurance. “A banker, if they’re going to finance someone like that, he’s going to have to have crop insurance,” he said.
Hudson W. Williams, executive vice president for community banking at Regions, said it is more important to keep the subsidies for insurance premiums intact than to protect direct payments. Banks would raise interest rates on farm loans for borrowers who lacked adequate insurance, and that would cost them more than they stand to give up in direct payments, he said.