Since 1920s, the US Federal government has intensified its concentration on agriculture. This was after realizing the beneficial impact of agriculture on the US economy. Several attempts have been made towards the achieving more profound and profitable agricultural sector (Jussaume, 2008). The government has ensured the total support of farming mainly through offering financial assistance to farmers, by making it a fundamental aspect when formulating the national budget. Following the legislators’ support, the federal government has made efforts to enhance a favorable atmosphere to farmers during the production and marketing of their products.
Agricultural based reforms were made in 1996 under the ‘Freedom to Farm’ Law, enabling the farmers to freely make resolutions that involve planting and also increasing their participation in the market. In 2002, more emphasis was put to empower farming, and more declarations were made to foster a promising productivity and competitive products in the international markets. In 2008, a proposal aimed at lengthening the already set financial support programs was reinforced through the Congress. The legislators also passed on a policy “permanent disaster” agenda that addressed the problem of unfavorable climatic situations in most areas. Producers of specific crops were also relieved through different policies.
Specifically, the sugar producers benefited through a sugar-to-ethanol program under which the surplus sugar imports would be bought by the government in order to control the hiking prices of domestic sugar (Vert, 2011). This is to protect the sugar farmers from exploitation through the international markets. The excess sugar was sold to ethanol producing firms, in case of necessity.
The 2002 ‘farm law’ incorporated peanuts to be among the selected crops that were to benefit under the new laws. The new policy provided several ways of giving supportive aids to farmers. One of these ways was through giving the subsidy disbursement straight to farmers. This provided means of sparing the farmers from the exploitation of the past agricultural plans which warranted the farmers of fixed prices. Paying the agricultural grants directly to cultivators, also gave a solution to the instable national profits related to farming. Another mechanism was through offering the marketing loans to the farm producers, with intent to promote overproduction through putting up a ground for prices on the crops. It also safeguarded the producer by minimizing the fluctuation of prices in external markets (Taylor, 2009). Through this strategy, the farmers’ crops are used as guarantee for the loans.
Limited time Offer
A third plan that was set up was the countercyclical payments which were focused on increasing the support incentives when the prices in the market are poor. It also motivates surfeit production in farms, just like the strategy of the marketing loan. Conversely, the countercyclical supportive funds are based on the production trends derived from the past, while the marketing credits major on present trends of production. This makes countercyclical payments to be less harmful to the US economy, as compared to the rest which leave the economy unstable.
The financial grants offered by the US government to farmers have been highly criticized due to the fact that it concentrates a lot of funds on farmers who are but a small fraction of the population. The government input into agriculture outweighs the benefit reaped from it. This load falls on the taxpayers thus bringing the economic imbalance.
These agricultural activities should be managed to protect soil, air, water quality, wildlife and other biodiversity. This will increase the long term viability, productivity and productivity of agriculture. Farmers of sugarcane, sorghums and such like crops should integrate pollution prevention and extensive reduction in the use of non-renewable energy.
The government should expand and enlarge the agricultural market for sugarcane both in the domestic market and overseas market. This will increase demand for the product, and thus increased profits and encouragement to sugarcane farmers. According to Keynesians, economist an expanded market increases demand and supply of a product (Taylor, 2009). A bigger market gives farmers an assurance that they will get returns from their investment.
High performance of agriculture in the United States depends on intense application of inputs, aimed towards the increasing soil fertility, and provides the ideal conditions required for growth of these cloths. Many crop varieties require fertile grounds to grow and produce efficiently. To encourage the extensive sugarcane farming in the USA, governments need to develop institution that will research on how to integrate sugarcane productivity and productivity with an environmental stewardship spirit in mind. Government should develop an institution which will convey the latest research conducted and findings to local farmers and then educate them on how to use the latest technologies and farming strategies to farm more efficiently. Lastly the government should also increase its average annual expenditure in agricultural programs which are intended to increase production of sugarcane, sorghum and other crops.