|
|
Will the next farm bill cause civil war in rural America?The first hearings of the 2012 farm legislation were held last week, and as expected, they revealed the Barack Obama administration wishes to take money from farm programs and move it to other priorities. The Secretary of Agriculture pressed the issue with farm-state lawmakers by suggesting rural communities need more jobs and rural economic development funding should increase. That difference in priorities may set up a conflict in which direct farm payments are pitted against rural development with all casualties inflicted on the same people. I can trace the rural jobs philosophy back to Bill Clinton in the 1990s. During a news call with farm reporters he stated, "Farmers need jobs!" This was a shocking but accurate statement, as very few farm families drew all their income from the farming or ranching operation. It was still distasteful to think that a million-dollar investment would not provide enough income for a family to live and that one or both spouses had to find a place off the farm to work so they may have regular income and insurance. The USDA rural economic development program emerged in the George W. Bush administration as the rising star for renewal of rural communities. The programs gained additional funding from Congress, and the money was put out to communities and businesses in grants and guaranteed loans with exceptional results. Communities rebuilt their hospitals and bought fire trucks. Businesses moved to rural communities and expanded, ethanol refineries were funded and vitality was pumped into rural areas that had been almost totally dependent on agriculture. As we transition to another Democratic administration, the goals of the past are moved to the present. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, as the sole witness in the first farm bill hearing, decried the lack of jobs in rural communities and vowed to utilize rural development to do something about it. This caused the ranking Republican on the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Frank Lucas from Oklahoma, to ask if the administration planned to turn rural America into a giant bedroom community. So the battle begins. Lucas made his point that the USDA budget goes mostly for non-farm programs (78 percent is my tally) that include food and nutrition expenditures. Lucas believes the remaining money should stay in programs that benefit farmers, such as subsidizing crop insurance so it can be offered in all states and direct farm payments to producers who grow large acreage of low-margin crops. The United States has already found that there is a fine line that has to be walked in order to comply with the rules of the World Trade Organization. Payments to farmers have to go into one of three categories: amber box, blue box or green box. Like traffic lights, amber is danger but green is good. The only payments that are not viewed as trade distorting are the direct payments that now go into the green box. When the administration revealed it wanted to put that money into rural development to bring more and better jobs to rural America, the battle lines were drawn. The other farm bill battle will be over subsidizing private companies that offer crop insurance. The administration thinks the billions of dollars it invests is too much, while the industry is already losing insurers who can't make enough to stay in. If the number of viable companies becomes too few, the USDA may have to take the program back in house and add staff to administer it. What does this do? It brings more money back to government and adds government jobs at Farm Service Administration offices in rural America. I recall asking if the 2008 farm bill would be the "last" farm bill. It won't be the last one to regulate agriculture, but it may be the last one to incentivize farmers to abide by its rules. Payments for conservation and compliance may become so small that, in themselves, they will offer no reason for farmers to follow them--but penalties for non-compliance may be so high that the grower has no choice. Rural America needs a balance of agricultural and non-agricultural income. The lifestyle can be exceptional when income opportunity is combined with rural and small-town life. But this world needs to eat, and farmers who produce our food also live and work in these rural areas. Their need for income and quality of life is of great importance for our national security. Balancing the beam will be difficult with Democrats waving jobs on one side and Republicans waving farm payments on the other. The distractions of climate, energy and immigration will make it even more challenging--along with 2010 elections that could shake the floors of House and Senate. If we didn't have so much at risk, it would be a lot more fun to watch. Editor's Note: Ken Root is an independent agricultural journalist. He was named the 2009 Farm Broadcaster of the Year and was the 2008 winner of the Oscar in Agriculture. He is an Oklahoma native and an experienced print, radio and television journalist. He has spent the last five years as Lead Farm Broadcaster at WHO Radio in¬ Des Moines, Iowa. He and his wife Gail have two adult children and two grandchildren.
1
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 |
|
