|
|
Game of chess or chicken?By Seymour Klierly Reaching the conclusion of a new farm bill is proving to be a very difficult task, more so than many long time D.C. ag policy wonks ever expected. Whether at a party or a restaurant or just wandering the halls of the office buildings, whenever two or more of these folks see each other they can't help but offer their thoughts on the floundering progress of the farm bill. They speculate on the strategies of different members. They guess when or if a bill will be completed and there is usually some comparison of the process to a game. If this is truly a game, I'm having a little difficulty determining which game some of these folks are playing. I'd like to think that this is a game of chess. I'd like to think that all involved are making carefully calculated decisions. I'd like to think that they have an end game strategy in mind . . . but I'm not so sure this is the case. My fear is that some folks are treating this like a good old fashion game of chicken. There's a lot less thought put into a game of chicken and there are only two possible results. If your opponent moves out of your way then you win. If not, there will be one big crash and everyone comes to with nothing but a mess and a headache. Whether they're playing a game of chess or chicken, House Ag Committee Chairman Collin Peterson and Ranking Member Bob Goodlatte no doubt made the first move. This week they sent the Senate a new proposal that rocked just about everyone's world. It's a trimmed down version of the farm bill that the House passed in July, only this time with no tax provisions. That's right, no tax increases means any additional money they want to spend on food stamps or conservation or energy or specialty crops must be paid for by cuts to the farm program. And that is just what they did. The Peterson/Goodlatte proposal authorizes farm programs for ten years instead of the traditional five years. In doing so, they cut the direct payment program in the ninth year . . . to the tune of $5.2 billion. That means in 2016 no farmer of any commodity would receive a direct payment under this plan. That's a bit steep for some lawmakers who feel the commodity title of the farm bill was cut enough to begin with. In fact, a year ago USDA came out with a farm bill proposal that increased direct payments by $5.5 billion. The direct payment cut wasn't their only offset, but it was certainly the biggest. This is where the nature of the game gets confusing. Up to this point, Chairman Peterson seems to be the only one of the two ag chairmen to be actively engaged in moving this bill forward. He must have known that this proposal would not be accepted by the Senate. So I can't figure out if he's playing chess and trying to get the Senate to react in a specific way; or if he's playing chicken and just daring the Senate and White House to stand in his way. With the deadline fast approaching, I guess we'll find out soon. 2/18/08 Date: 2/13/08
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2012. 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 |
|
