In all fairness to Miller, DeSoto is right. Miller bought a quarter section while he was in the Army and must have leased it on shares to the farm operator, thereby qualifying for payments (probably deficiency payments). The operator would have enrolled the farm, although Miller would have had to sign the contract to receive the payments."DeSoto [Miller's spokesman] said that it was standard practice for farmers to receive the subsidies in Kansas and that the nation was in a much better financial situation at the time that Miller received the funds.“This was back in the 90’s, the situation the country was in was far different than now,” he said."
And of course DeSoto is absolutely right, the country was in much better shape under Clinton than it was under Bush.
As for the other story linked to, on Mudflats, (saying Miller got payments on some Alaska land, which the spokesman denied), that story links to the Environmental Working Group's farm subsidy database. Even in Alaska there may be multiple Joe Millers. There's a discrepancy; the spokesman says Miller owned Alaska land since 1999, but the EWG data shows payments since 1995, some barley direct and DFC payments (which might or might not mean barley was being grown in those years), some marketing loan payments (which would require barley to be grown) and some agricultural conservation program (long term agreement) payments. If the Joe Miller in the EWG is the same as the candidate and he bought the land in 1999, he possibly would have gotten an obligation under the ACP LTA when he bought, although a new owner might have the opportunity to terminate an agreement.
As for the other story linked to, on Mudflats, (saying Miller got payments on some Alaska land, which the spokesman denied), that story links to the Environmental Working Group's farm subsidy database. Even in Alaska there may be multiple Joe Millers. There's a discrepancy; the spokesman says Miller owned Alaska land since 1999, but the EWG data shows payments since 1995, some barley direct and DFC payments (which might or might not mean barley was being grown in those years), some marketing loan payments (which would require barley to be grown) and some agricultural conservation program (long term agreement) payments. If the Joe Miller in the EWG is the same as the candidate and he bought the land in 1999, he possibly would have gotten an obligation under the ACP LTA when he bought, although a new owner might have the opportunity to terminate an agreement.
No comments:
Post a Comment