| ||||
|
|
Which dog are you?
President Bush has proposed a 5 percent, across-the-board, cut in the farm program. The response to this proposal interests me greatly. Frequently, I've heard, "Doesn't he know who got him elected?" "Has he forgotten the red and blue map?" We, in agriculture, represent only 1.5 percent of the nation's population so I'm sure we didn't single-handedly assure his re-election. Furthermore, one of the reasons he was elected is because he told us he believed in smaller government. Now that he has proposed a smaller government that affects farmers, we are not happy with it.
As long as I have been old enough to understand what a government subsidy is, I have heard everyone in the ag community talk about wanting to get rid of it. Farmers go to the coffee shop and brag about how much their Wheat yielded or how big their calves were. I don't remember a single person bragging about how much they got from the government in commodity payments. Now I am the first one to promote that maintaining American food production is a means to our national security, but what is the cost of this staying power.
I will admit that initially I thought Bush's proposal sounded like a bad thing for all of rural America because rural communities are dependent on a strong agricultural economy. After researching and reading as much as I could find, I believe this may be a good thing for American food production as long as this is the first step. Addressing the real reason we are losing producers in America--the outrageous cost of compliance, must follow this initial step.
With all of that said, here is where the current administration needs to step up to the plate. Even with a 5 percent cut in Rural Investment and a 1 percent cut in education, the $2.57 trillion budget means our government is spending 38 percent more than when Bush first became president. My gripe with this proposed budget has less to with federal cuts in the Rural Investment Act and more to do with wanting to know where the rest of that money is going.
While I realize that this viewpoint will not be popular, I ask you to stop and think about this. I think there is a tremendous parallel here to Seligman's Psychological Theory of "Learned Helplessness." I truly believe that we are at a very important point in American agriculture. We know for a fact that other countries can produce food more inexpensively than we can. As we continue on a fast track to a global world, what will it take for the American farmer and rancher to survive?
I keep coming back to the opening line in a Sacramento Bee article:
America's system of subsidizing certain crops has evolved into a public welfare system for some of the country's fiercest and most independent-minded entrepreneurs: our farmers.
We will not continue to be the world's premier food production system by sitting back and expecting big brother to provide us with a safety net. If a 5 percent cut in government payments forces us to be more aggressive in adding value to the farm products we produce, who will benefit? If Bush's cuts force us to do a better job of promoting the importance of consuming foods produced here at home and educating our United States consumers, who will benefit? If it forces us to come out of the tractor and show up in a retail outlet to put a face with the image of an American farmer, who will benefit?
The entrepreneurial spirit of the American farmer built the elite system we have today. Maybe it is time we get a swift kick in the pants that reminds us not to sit back and wait for prosperity to fall into our laps. Interestingly enough, Seligman used dogs to prove his theory about how mindset was the most important factor in determining which dogs survived and which dogs gave up. Two-thirds of the dogs Seligman tested gave up and accepted what they were given. The remaining one-third responded by finding a way to survive on their own. I would like to believe that the people left in American agriculture represent a similar minority and they will continue to find a way to be the envy of the world when it comes to food production. Which dog are you?
Editor's note: Trent Loos is a sixth generation United States farmer, host of the daily radio show, Loos Tales, and founder of Faces of Agriculture, a non-profit organization putting the human element back into the production of food. Get more information at www.FacesOfAg.com, or e-mail Trent at trent@loostales.com.
Date: 2/24/05
Copyright 1995-2008. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com
 
| |||||||||||||||||||||
