ANALYSIS: Farmers At Greater Risk of Suicide Because of Economy

[Zippyjuan]

Trump tariff wars could make things worse- China has threatened to retaliate with tariffs on US agricultural products.

http://www.dailyyonder.com/analysis-...8/05/07/24301/

<snip>

Combine the increased financial stress with the results of a 2016 Centers for Disease Control study, “Suicide Rates by Occupational Group – 17 States, 2012,” which found that the occupational group farming, fishing, and forestry had the highest suicide rate of any occupational group. In the 17 states studied, the 2012 suicide rate among those whose major occupation group was farming, fishing, and forestry was 84.5 suicides per 100,000 persons.

Those numbers and an article in the Guardian, “Why are America’s farmers killing themselves in record numbers?” by Debbie Weingarten https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...record-numbers make it clear that the costs and returns and net farm income numbers as well as the farm policy design failures we have been examining in our recent columns are not idle statistics. They can have tragic consequences.

To get a handle on what is happening in the countryside, we talked to National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson who was a credit counselor for hundreds of farm families during the farm financial crisis in the 1980s. He talked about a presentation that he made in January at the North Dakota State University Farm Economics Summit where he compared the situation in the 1980s with what we are seeing today.

He noted that, unlike the 1980s, land values have not collapsed, machinery values are not below 50 percent, interest rates are lower, and the overall farm debt-to-asset ratio looks good by historical standards. As a result, things don’t blow up as quickly as they did in the earlier crisis period. On the other hand, farm operating costs are an order of magnitude higher than they were in the 1980s. And, if interest rates begin to edge up, the situation could quickly go south in just a couple of years.

For the farmer who has been denied an operating loan, the feelings of failure and inadequacy are no different from what farmers were feeling three decades ago. In this situation or even one where the financial stress is high, access to mental health services is critical.

The 2008 Farm Bill included a federal program called “Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network” which was meant to provide farmers with affordable mental health programs to help them deal with the stresses of farming. The program would have provided grants to support farm helplines, websites, educational services, support groups, mental health outreach, and home delivery of assistance, but it was never funded. Sadly, it is needed now.

“See something, say something” is a good aphorism not only to prevent mass shootings, but also to prevent suicides in both farm and non-farm communities. We urge our readers to watch for signs of stress in their spouses, children, friends, and neighbors. The first step is to get the person you are concerned about to call the Suicide Prevention Lifeline, 1-800-273-TALK (8255), or make the call yourself. Information is also available at suicidepreventionlifeline.org. It is better to be too concerned than to wait and hope things will blow over.

more at link.

[Zippyjuan]

Government help may be on the way (for some)

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...s-for-the-rich

Farm Bill hypocrisy mean more subsidies for the rich, greater food insecurity for the poor


From farm to fork, America’s food system should be one we are proud of. It should make sure that hungry Americans are able to put food on their table when they need it most, it should ensure that farmers have a reasonable safety net when Mother Nature strikes, and it should ensure that animals and crops are produced in ways that are safe for farmworkers and the environment.

The Farm Bill – passed by Congress every five years – should reflect those goals.

Unfortunately, the Republican Farm Bill (H.R. 2) that the U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on this week could not be farther from the goal.

The misguided, stricter work requirements proposed for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) has rightfully received the bulk of the attention from lawmakers who are following the Farm Bill. These sweeping changes would reduce or eliminate benefits for more than 1 million households and more than 2 million people, jeopardizing the effectiveness of our country’s most successful anti-hunger program.

Yet the systematic changes being proposed to SNAP are even more alarming because when it comes to controversial farm subsidies, the Republican Farm Bill would make it even easier for wealthy individuals or members of corporations to collect farm subsidies without being subject to more stringent work requirements like those proposed in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s most recent budget.

The Congressional Budget Office’s recent analysis has found that federal spending on farm subsidies are now likely to cost almost $12.6 billion more than originally anticipated when lawmakers passed the 2014 Farm Bill. And farm subsidy programs are so skewed to the wealthy that the top 10 percent of farms – or about 76,000 farms – received over 60 percent of all farm subsidies.

Under current law many farms receive more than $1 million in subsidies annually, and the share of subsidies that go to the largest farm businesses with gross cash farm incomes above $1 million annually has increased from 11 percent in 1991 to 35 percent in 2015.

Now new analysis of federal data by the Environmental Working Group finds that nearly 18,000 individuals living in the nation’s 50 largest cities like New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago received more than $63 million in farm subsidies in 2015 and 2016.

With thousands of individuals receiving farm subsidies without living or working on farms, you would expect that Congress would jump at the idea of applying stricter work requirements to ensure that only farmers get farm subsidies.

But you’d be wrong.

The House Republican Farm Bill would take our nation’s bloated farm subsidy system and create new loopholes that will allow corporate farms to evade payment limits and means testing while at the same time allow cousins, nieces and nephews of farmers to collect farm subsidies regardless of whether they live or work on the farm.

House Republicans often talk about wanting to lift people out of poverty when they mention their stricter work requirements for SNAP. Thankfully that is already at the core of the program. According to the Urban Institute, SNAP removed 8.4 million people from poverty in 2015.

The simple fact being neglected in the current farm bill debate is that SNAP already requires working-age adults to register for work and accept a job if offered. And, individuals aged 18-49 without children can only participate in SNAP for three months out of every three years unless they are working 20 hours per week – a policy that has led many poor participants to lose SNAP benefits.

[oyarde]

I will be ok . Subsidy free here .

[angelatc]

What the actual $#@!? So things were bad under Obama, but they might get worse under Trump? That's your take on all this?


By the way, you and Donna should go get a room: Most corporate farms are family owned. They're just structured that way to avoid those inheritance taxes your deadbeat friends are so find of.

Seriously, what is the point of posting this gibberish?

..... unlike the 1980s, land values have not collapsed, machinery values are not below 50 percent, interest rates are lower, and the overall farm debt-to-asset ratio looks good by historical standards. As a result, things don’t blow up as quickly as they did in the earlier crisis period. On the other hand, farm operating costs are an order of magnitude higher than they were in the 1980s. And, if interest rates begin to edge up, the situation could quickly go south in just a couple of years.

This is the dumbest thing I've seen all day. You should be temp-banned just for posting it here. It does nothing to support the mission. Well, OUR mission, I mean.

[Dr.3D]

So what? You just said 1.6% is rare and even 3.2% is rare when talking about pancreatic cancer and now your talking about these suicides that only happen at 0.08% like it's worse?

Second article notes:

The ‘good news’ is that pancreatic cancer is quite rare – only 1.6 percent of Americans will get it in their lifetimes. Even with a doubled risk, the disease only affects 3.2 percent of U.S. residents. Even when taking a CCB blood pressure medication, the risk of getting pancreatic cancer is still relatively low.