This farm
bill was an opportunity to stop subsidizing mega farms to drive family farms
out of business and instead invest in the future of rural America. The
stars were aligned. The House and Senate Agriculture Committees were led by
Midwestern policy makers rather than diehard Southern payment limitation
opponents.
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.
