WASHINGTON – If Marlin Stutzman is against government bailouts, Democratic congressional candidate Tom Hayhurst said Thursday, he should not accept government subsidies for the crops he grows.

Stutzman, the Republican nominee for the northeast Indiana congressional seat, has received $179,370 in farm subsidy payments since 1995 for land he co-owns in Indiana and Michigan, according to the Environmental Working Group, which analyzes Agriculture Department statistics.

Stutzman co-owns about 4,000 acres in the two states with his father, Albert. Together, they have received more than $998,000 in agriculture payments since 1995.

Last year, Marlin Stutzman received $6,626 in crop subsidies; his father received $33,313.

Hayhurst was quick to say he backs price supports and direct payments to farmers, particularly operators of small, family farms. But he said Stutzman “personally benefited from that financially from exactly the system he’s complaining about.”

In a speech to the Goshen Rotary Club last month, Stutzman said “it’s time to get rid of farm subsidies,” the Goshen News reported. “The subsidies only manipulate the market.”

Farmers are eligible to receive several types of payments from the federal government.

The two major ones are payments given to farm owners no matter what the crop prices are or whether land is not planted, and payments that make up the difference between the market price of a crop and an amount fixed by the government.

Politicians of both parties have long supported crop subsidies for farmers. Legislative attempts to eliminate subsidies or – as President Obama supports – do away with payments to wealthy landowners have been rejected.

“I firmly believe we need to strengthen family farms,” Hayhurst said in a telephone interview. “For that reason, I think the subsidy program does have value. It helps small farmers – maybe big farmers could weather it – during a time when crop prices fall way off – they don’t have to shut down, go bankrupt.”

Hayhurst said farm subsidies are also important to ensure the U.S. has an adequate food supply.

But, he said, Stutzman’s willingness to take government payments while saying they should be abolished “is a bizarre contradiction. … It’s kind of a slam especially to small farmers to remove this important support system.”

Stutzman, who did not respond to a telephone message, does not specifically address agriculture or farm subsidies on his campaign website. However, it says:

“I would never support a federal bailout of private business. In a free enterprise economy, businesses have the opportunity to succeed, and sometimes, even the opportunity to fail. The federal government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.”

Stutzman was referring to the bailouts of the financial and auto industries.

sylviasmith@jg.net