Market Loss Assistance Program in Worcester County, Maryland, 1995-2023
Subsidy Recipients 121 to 140 of 245
Recipients of Market Loss Assistance Program from farms in Worcester County, Maryland totaled $3,131,000 in from 1995-2023.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Market Loss Assistance Program 1995-2023 |
---|---|---|---|
121 | Douglas A Jones | Berlin, MD 21811 | $2,899 |
122 | Robert Gray | Bishopville, MD 21813 | $2,865 |
123 | Helen H Faucette | Ormond Beach, FL 32176 | $2,817 |
124 | John D East Jr | Pocomoke City, MD 21851 | $2,746 |
125 | Charlotte T Causey | Salisbury, MD 21804 | $2,548 |
126 | Calvin Hastings Jr | Berlin, MD 21811 | $2,528 |
127 | Pine Tree Farms | Newark, MD 21841 | $2,418 |
128 | James Corbin | Pocomoke City, MD 21851 | $2,407 |
129 | Dr Robert C Lamar | Snow Hill, MD 21863 | $2,397 |
130 | Jane Aydelotte Taylor | Salisbury, MD 21804 | $2,266 |
131 | Herman Lee Patey | Willards, MD 21874 | $2,265 |
132 | Daniel T Rayne | Willards, MD 21874 | $2,262 |
133 | Harvey William Pusey | Pocomoke City, MD 21851 | $2,162 |
134 | Paul M Jones Land & Timber Co Inc | Snow Hill, MD 21863 | $2,109 |
135 | Shimar Farms Trust Under The Will Of Mark O Pilcha | Pocomoke City, MD 21851 | $2,059 |
136 | Jason Lambertson | Pocomoke City, MD 21851 | $2,058 |
137 | Bill Pennewill | Eden, MD 21822 | $2,028 |
138 | Joyce D Quillen | Snow Hill, MD 21863 | $2,018 |
139 | James R Layfield | Parsonsburg, MD 21849 | $1,943 |
140 | Rick Gordy | Newark, MD 21841 | $1,895 |
* USDA data are not "transparent" for many payments made to recipients through most cooperatives. Recipients of payments made through most cooperatives, and the amounts, have not been made public. To see ownership information, click on the name, then click on the link that is titled Ownership Information.
** EWG has identified this recipient as a bank or lending institution that received the payment because the payment applicant had a loan requiring any subsidy payments go to the lender first. In 2019, the information provided to EWG by USDA began to include the entity that received the payment, rather than the person or entity that applied for it, which was previously provided. This move to shield subsidy recipients from disclosure enables USDA to further evade taxpayer accountability. Six percent of subsidy dollars went to banks, lending institutions, or the Farm Service Agency.”