Farm-Level Analysis of Risk Management Proposals, March 2000

This paper presents a detailed report of the representative farm analysis (summarized in FAPRI Policy Working Paper #01-00). At the request of several members of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the U.S. Senate, we have continued to analyze the impacts of the Farmers’ Risk Management Act of 1999 (S. 1666) and the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act (S. 1580). Earlier analysis reported in FAPRI Policy Working Paper #04-99 concentrated on the aggregate net farm income and government outlay impacts. The representative farm analysis is conducted for several types of farms, including both irrigated and non-irrigated cotton farms in Tom Green County, Texas; dryland wheat farms in Morton County, North Dakota and Sumner County, Kansas; and a corn farm in Webster County, Iowa. We consider additional factors that may shed light on the differential impacts of the two plans. 1. Farm-level income impacts under alternative weather scenarios. 2. Additional indirect impacts, such as a change in ability to obtain financing. 3. Implications of within-year price shocks. Our results indicate that farmers who buy crop insurance will increase their coverage levels under S. 1580. Farmers with high yield risk find that the 65 percent coverage level maximizes expected returns, but some who feel that they obtain other benefits from higher coverage will find that the S. 1580 subsidy schedule significantly lowers the cost of obtaining the additional coverage. Farmers with lower yield risk find that the increased indemnities from additional coverage will more than offset the increase in producer premium. In addition, because S. 1580 extends its increased premium subsidy percentages to revenue insurance products, farmers will have an increased incentive to buy revenue insurance. Differences in the ancillary benefits from crop insurance under the baseline and S. 1580 would be driven by the increase in insurance participation and buy-up. Given the same levels of insurance participation and buy-up, the ancillary benefits under the two scenarios would be the same.

U.S. Farm Policy and the Variability of Commodity Prices and Farm Revenues, February 2000

A dynamic, three-commodity rational-expectations storage model is used to compare the impact of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 with a freemarket policy and with the agricultural policies that preceded the FAIR Act. Results support the hypothesis that the changes made when FAIR was enacted did not lead to permanent significant increases in the volatility of farm prices or revenues. An important finding is that the main economic impacts of the Pre-FAIR scenario, relative to the free-market regime were to transfer income to farmers and to substitute government storage for private storage in a way that did little to support prices or to stabilize farm incomes.

Tariff Equivalent of Technical Barriers to Trade with Imperfect Substitution and Trade Costs, November 2005

The price-wedge method yields a tariff-equivalent estimate of technical barriers to trade (TBT). An extension of this method accounts for imperfect substitution between domestic and imported goods and incorporates recent findings on trade costs. We explore the sensitivity of this revamped TBT estimate to its key determinants (substitution elasticity, preference for home good, and trade cost). We use the augmented approach to investigate the ongoing US-Japan apple trade dispute and find that removing the Japanese TBT would yield limited export gains to the United States. We then draw policy implications of our findings.

Indian Hills Community College, Independent Auditor's Reports, Basic Financial Statements and Supplementary Information, Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs, June 30, 2005

Community College Audit Reports

Clarke Community School District, Independent Auditor's Reports, Basic Financial Statements and Supplementary Information, Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs, June 30, 2005

Community School District Audit Report

Warren County, Independent Auditor's Reports, Basic Financial Statements and Supplementary Information, Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs, June 30, 2005

County Audit Report

City of Knoxville, Independent Auditor's Reports, Basic Financial Statements and Supplementary Information, Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs, June 30, 2005

City Audit Report

City of Council Bluffs, Independent Auditor's Reports, Basic Financial Statements and Supplementary Information, Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs, June 30, 2005

City Audit Report

Story County, Independent Auditor's Reports, Basic Financial Statements and Supplementary Information, Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs, June 30, 2005

County Audit Report

City of Nevada, Independent Auditor's Reports, Basic Financial Statements and Supplementary Information, Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs, June 30, 2005

City Audit Report

Perry Community School District, Independent Auditor's Reports, Basic Financial Statements and Supplementary Information, Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs, June 30, 2005

Community School District Audit Report

Jasper County, Independent Auditor's Reports, Basic Financial Statements and Supplementary Information, Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs, June 30, 2005

County Audit Report

Des Moines County, Independent Auditor's Reports, Basic Financial Statements and Supplementary Information, Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs, June 30, 2005

County Audit Report

Lee County, Independent Auditor's Reports, Basic Financial Statements and Supplementary Information, Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs, June 30, 2005

County Audit Report

Dallas County, Independent Auditor's Reports, Basic Financial Statements and Supplementary Information, Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs, June 30, 2005

County Audit Report