Truth about Farm Bill Payment Limitations
Two things
had to happen.
1) Congressional
supporters had to fight as hard to protect family farms as opponents fight to
protect large farms, and
2) Supporters had to embrace payment limitation calibrations to treat southern commodities equitably – to kick in at comparable acreages to northern commodities and affect comparable percentages of farms. That’s good policy, and it would have enabled southerners to vote for a farm bill that strengthens family farms.
But none of that happened. Instead Congress crafted an illusion of reform that does little more than provide political cover. (We explain the payment limitation provisions in the farm bill feature, click here for more.) The people of rural America deserve the truth about why it happened.
Commodity groups, American Farm Bureau and most southern policy makers opposed reform, as they always have. However, the decisive blow came from those who claimed to support family farm reforms but this time dealt them a blow.
National Farmers Union – The prairie/plains based Democratic leaning farm organization was positioned to play a big role with Midwestern Democrats chairing both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees. But in 2006, National Farmers Union President Tom Buis called payment limitations a red herring, said they were no priority, and spoke against committing farm bill resources to rural development. That view carried the day.
Farmers Union historically favored activist government to strengthen family-size farms. Farm Bureau historically opposed “interference” in markets and the structure of agriculture. This time, the ideological adversaries came together in support of maximizing farm payments with no regard to their impact on family farming. They quibbled only over the form of payment.
Prairie/Plains Populists – Democratic congressional candidates scour the countryside for votes by proclaiming themselves the champion of the little guy. But the House farm bill increased the payment limitation with no significant resistance from prairie/plains state representatives who had promised support for tighter limits. They supported the bill enthusiastically.
In the Senate, North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad pledged to oppose payment limitations in forming an alliance with Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss. When the Dorgan Grassley payment limitation bill came before the full Senate, Conrad brought along former payment limitation supporters Ken Salazar (D-CO) and Debbie Stebenow (D-MI) to provide the margin of victory for the opposition. Several prairie Democrats supported the Dorgan Grassley reform, and several of the region’s Republicans opposed it. But the difference was the defection of Democrats who had previously supported family farm reforms.
Administration – The administration talked a good line on reform but in many respects undermined the effort. It refused to support the one true reform on the table – the Dorgan Grassley bill. Instead, the administration deflected the focus to its ineffective proposals that purported to deny payments to high income individuals but in reality did little. Worst of all, the administration refused to implement the recommendations of the Government Accountability Office to use its administrative authority to close payment limitation loopholes.
Agree or disagree? Send your questions and comments to Chuck Hassebrook at 402.687.2103 x 1018 or chuckh@cfra.org.
The Farm Bill: Something for (almost) every body
It is quite remarkable that the farm bill passed with a veto-proof majority in both houses. No bill in the past 7 1/2 years had so much bi-partisan support in the face of White House opposition. Why, then, does it not reform commodity programs, but arguably makes them worse, even though farmers make up about 1 percent of the population and those who benefit from commodity programs considerably less than that. While commodity organizations have little power in either the House or Senate as a whole, they do wield a good deal of influence within the two Agriculture Committees--enough that the leadership of neither committee was willing to stand up to the commodity interests, particularly the cotton and rice interests who are even better organized than the corn-soya, wheat, and livestock groups Rather they (Sen. Harkin in particular) built a formidable block of support or at least acquiescence, that included urban legislators who wanted increased appropriations for food stamps, as well as sustainable agriculture groups who were willing to settle for modest gains for the CSP and crumbs for other conservation/environmental programs that they fought long and hard for. It is as if the harder they fought for small gains, the less they could see that the overall thrust of the bill was toward counter reform. To oppose the bill and come back next year when the forces of reaction in Congress are likely to be further weakened was unthinkable. So we are saddled with egregious legalized state corruption for another 5 years--and one wonders whether the incremental environmental advances will be funded under the upcoming fiscal crisis of the State, regardless of who becomes president. Commodity payments will of course be protected because they are entitlements.
The Center for Rural Affairs will be vindicated, but will have little time to gloat as progressive forces gear up to protect family and sustainable farmers from the 2008 Farm Bill itself and to prepare for the next David and Golliath battle five years from now. There is always next time!
, recognizing their limited influence over an ever shrinking number of House members,
Post new comment