Counter Cyclical Program in Calhoun County, South Carolina, 1995-2023
Subsidy Recipients 101 to 120 of 412
Recipients of Counter Cyclical Program from farms in Calhoun County, South Carolina totaled $17,084,000 in from 1995-2023.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Counter Cyclical Program 1995-2023 |
---|---|---|---|
101 | George Rast Jr | Cameron, SC 29030 | $14,185 |
102 | Larry E Elmore | Fort Motte, SC 29135 | $12,982 |
103 | Wheel Of Fortune Ranch | Saint Matthews, SC 29135 | $12,974 |
104 | Ford Douglass | Columbia, SC 29206 | $12,925 |
105 | Samuel D Montgomery III | Saint Matthews, SC 29135 | $12,858 |
106 | Daniel Wayne Carson | Elloree, SC 29047 | $12,404 |
107 | Richard A Edwards | Cameron, SC 29030 | $11,274 |
108 | Andrew J Hydrick Jr | Orangeburg, SC 29115 | $10,950 |
109 | Whitfield C Wannamaker | Tampa, FL 33609 | $10,146 |
110 | Linwood D Hair Jr | Saint Matthews, SC 29135 | $10,132 |
111 | Pitman Scott Jr | Santee, SC 29142 | $9,986 |
112 | Win Anne Wannamaker Chewning | Mt Pleasant, SC 29464 | $9,609 |
113 | Reed Holdings LLC | North, SC 29112 | $9,454 |
114 | Contrena Scott | Orangeburg, SC 29118 | $9,051 |
115 | Edmund H Hardy | Columbia, SC 29209 | $8,846 |
116 | Jjj Farms | Orangeburg, SC 29115 | $8,455 |
117 | Gn L P | Orangeburg, SC 29115 | $8,023 |
118 | Julius H Haigler | Cameron, SC 29030 | $7,826 |
119 | David Bryant | St Matthews, SC 29135 | $7,621 |
120 | Olivia H Houck | Cameron, SC 29030 | $7,488 |
* 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.”