(C) Minnesota Reformer This story was originally published by Minnesota Reformer and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . The 14th Amendment won’t save small farms • Minnesota Reformer [1] ['Sigrid Jewett', 'Eric Harris Bernstein', 'Kelly Mcconney Moore', 'Aaron Brown', 'More From Author', 'June', '.Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus-Coauthors.Is-Layout-Flow', 'Class', 'Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus', 'Display Inline'] Date: 2024-06-03 Although farm subsidies were originally intended to help family farms, they have become a tool for making the largest and wealthiest farms larger and wealthier. Those at the top work hard to preserve this system, and the small farms are left fighting for scraps. Minnesota’s Emerging Farmers Down Payment Assistance Program has attempted to better divide these scraps by prioritizing grants for first-time farm buyers who are veterans, urbanites, women, people of color, and other groups not conventionally associated with agriculture here. This prioritization has led to litigation, and the circumstances surrounding that litigation show that turning small farm grants into another front in the culture war is exactly what corporate farms want in order to preserve their present status. Some background: In 2021 Minnesota farmers received $1.5 billion in federal subsidies, just over $1 billion of which came through commodity programs and crop insurance assistance. The commodity programs subsidize farmers who grow large amounts of corn, soybeans and wheat, much of which does not get eaten by humans. The crop insurance programs provide the biggest and most financially stable farms with a minimum payment for their crops, regardless of market fluctuations. As a result, in 2021 the top 10% of Minnesota farms received nearly two-thirds of the money, with the top producers gaining hundreds of thousands of dollars each. Meanwhile 40% of Minnesota farmers — mostly the small family farms and those who grow non-commodity crops or raise small amounts of livestock — received nothing at all. The Minnesota Emerging Farmers Grant Assistance Program had a total budget of $1 million last year. Of the 176 applicants, 68 were granted $15,000 each to help with farm start-up costs, including land and equipment. The preferences to women, people of color, young people and urbanites was done in part to diversify the Minnesota farming community, which is 99% white and 75% male with an average age of 55. As farms increase in acreage, it becomes more likely that they will be operated by white males. As a white male who grew up farming, Lance Nistler had low priority, and his lottery spot was pushed back far enough that he did not receive a grant. He filed a lawsuit in January and is being represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a California firm that often makes libertarian legal arguments. Why would a California firm with two dozen Supreme Court wins be interested in representing a would-be small farmer in Minnesota pro-bono? Because Nistler is being used as a pawn in a larger culture war game. A hallmark of management capitalism has always been to keep the underlings fighting among themselves so they do not rise up and overtake you. Nistler is the perfect example of small farmers being made to fight each other for table scraps while the big farmers feast. Funding all 176 applicants to the Minnesota Grant Program at $15,000 each would cost $2.64 million total — less than 0.18% of the federal subsidies Minnesota farmers receive. This would diversify the farming community, provide a much needed boost to small farms and farming hopefuls, and would have very little impact on the payments enjoyed by large farms. Nistler is fighting for $15,000 against other people who cannot afford 40 acres, while farmers who own thousands of acres get upwards of $500,000 from the federal government every year. With the current legal landscape and the weaponization of 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause against equity programs, however, Nistler will likely win his case. Meanwhile, small farms will lose the war if something does not change. Big farmers are getting bigger and their owners are getting richer in part because of disproportionate federal farm subsidies. Small farmers are fighting each other for scraps and — in Lance Nistler’s case — attempting to dismantle equity programs to win pittances. If just 1% of federal farm subsidy money was diverted to state grant programs such as the one Nistler is suing over, there would be no basis for his lawsuit and the Minnesota farming community would look forward to a more prosperous — and diverse — future. [END] --- [1] Url: https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/06/03/the-14th-amendment-wont-save-small-farms/ Published and (C) by Minnesota Reformer Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons License CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/MnReformer/