That's a really interesting comment because the crop insurance program works well; it's responsive, it's fairly fast, and it's well understood. Producers are generally happy with that particular program.
The AgriInvest program, again, is very easy to understand because you get a certain percentage of sales back, up to a cap. I'm not totally convinced that every farmer actually needs that, but that's another issue.
As for the AgriStability program, I did some work with the OECD, and their recommendation was actually to do more with AgriInvest and less with AgriStability. AgriStability takes a long time and it's not predictable. So people don't know when they're going to get their money, they don't know how much money they're going to get, and it arrives a year and a half later. Either they survived or they didn't. The money comes along, and they say it's nice, but....
It doesn't have to be everything out, but I think a shift of that nature would probably make a lot of sense. I think the AgriRecovery program probably does what it's supposed to do. When there's a disaster out there, a region floods out, and nobody gets their crops in, or it's completely wiped out by drought, then the government is able to respond fairly quickly. Maybe we don't have the parameters well-enough defined.
I'm glad to hear that. I've heard it from more than one producer. A lot of the people I know say the government money's nice, but they certainly don't count on it in their planning.