| 摘要 | Hurricane Michael was a catastrophic event with horrific consequences for thousands of families. Lives and homes were lost, hundreds of small- and medium-sized businesses located near the Florida shores of Mexico City and Panama City were destroyed or heavily damaged, and farmers in southern Georgia lost their crops. Today, Sonny Purdue, the Secretary of Agriculture, is following the long and understandably compassionate tradition of making a strong push for new emergency aid funds for these and other farmers. But who should be at the front of the line when hurricane relief aid needs are determined? Should it be farmers, homeowners, or business owners?
Many of the working families who lost their homes to Hurricane Michael are in dire financial straits today. Not only are their property and personal belongings gone, but also their jobs — in the near future, if not forever. The restaurants, hotels, service stations, retails outlets, and many other small businesses at which they worked have disappeared. And those remaining no longer have any customers as the tourist trade has fled.
It will be many months before any significant financial aid is available for those families and businesses, if it is available at all. That is because addressing family needs and determining whether individuals are eligible for help takes time, no matter how efficiently the Federal Emergency Management Agency functions. If families or business owners had viable insurance coverage, private sector insurance companies will also need time to assess losses and write checks.
Read more
A little more north, in the south central and eastern counties of Georgia, Hurricane Michael wrecked the cotton harvest for several farmers. Some producers lost their entire 2018 crops, while other “more fortunate” farm businesses were able to harvest up to 40% of their expected yields. The difference with many of the families who lost everything, is that the Mitchel and Colquitt counties cotton producers in southern Georgia will receive help from the federal government very promptly through the federal crop insurance program.
In those counties, almost every acre planted with cotton has been insured against yield or revenue losses under the crop insurance program. While the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistical Office does not yet have data on how much cotton was planted in those counties in 2018, in 2016 and 2017, farmers planted cotton in approximately 47,500 acres in Colquitt County and 53,400 acres in Mitchell County. In 2018, the USDA’s Risk Management Agency reports that cotton growers insured 51,711 acres of cotton in Colquitt County and 56,262 acres in Mitchell County. Most probably close to 100 percent of what they planted.
Thus farmers in Mitchel and Colquitt counties will most likely be made good within 60 days of when Hurricane Michael damaged or destroyed their crops. The extent of the help is the next question. Farmers have the option of different levels of insurance coverage for their crops: ranging from 50% to 85% of the expected value of their crop. In Colquitt County, over 50% of the cotton acreage was insured at the 80% or 85% level, with an extra 17% at the 75% level. Farmers in Mitchell County also insured over 70% of the area planted with cotton at, or above, the 75% coverage level. And in reality farmers pay substantially less than 50% of the full cost of insuring their crops because of government subsidies.
So, what does it mean in practical terms? In a recent news article, a farmer from Mitchell County was quoted as saying he had lost a crop worth at least $2.1 million dollars. Another said he had lost at least $500,000 dollars. With the lowest 75% coverage, the farmer with the $2.1 million crop loss should be receiving soon a check for over $1.5 million to compensate him for Hurricane Michael’s damage. The other farmer, whose loss was about $500,000 may even already have received a check for $375,000 or more. Neither farmer will have to incur cotton harvesting or ginning costs because they have no crop to harvest or gin, although they will have costs associated with cleaning up the fields damaged by the hurricane.
By comparison, other businesses — hotels, restaurants, retail outlets, and mom and pop convenience stores– can only wish they had such direct and timely access to government loans and grants to help them get back on their feet. The plight of many families, with no incomes and very limited financial resources, who have lost everything is heartbreaking. But no federal government program checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars are likely to come to their aid. With that context in mind, pleas by farmers and farm advocates to be at the front of the line for more government help seems worrying.
Vincent H. Smith is a Visiting Scholar and the Director of Agricultural Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. He is also Professor of Economics in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics at Montana State University. |
