Farm Bill should be front and center
It’s official now: This is silly season. The Republican National Convention, slated to begin in Tampa Monday, was delayed by a day, leaving journalists with little to do but speculate and focus on the non-newsworthy.
Delegates and pundits alike were relieved when tropical storm Isaac, which had been headed straight for Tampa, veered left and aimed instead for the Gulf Coast of Louisiana and Mississippi.
Close call, but wait! What if the nascent hurricane slows down, building steam, and hits New Orleans full force? Fearing a repeat of Hurricane Katrina and its misadventures among officials at all levels, would candidates seize the day to prove they are presidential or breathe a sigh of relief that their big shindig can proceed, almost on schedule? It seemed Romney and several others, retiring to secluded venues, welcomed another day to prepare their speeches.
But lost amid the convention hysteria, in my view, is the real news. The House of Representatives adjourned this month for five weeks, leaving serious legislation unaddressed. For those in Congress, who live in cities far from the drought-stricken farm belt, reauthorizing, rewriting or even renaming the Farm Bill, seems to be low priority. That’s a shame.
The bill is updated only once every five years, which indicates that farmers, more than almost any other business owners, need to plan for the long term. But it affects more than farmers and ranchers. In fact, a coalition of 39 groups representing state and local governments—financial and energy groups, as well as farmers—named Farm Bill Now, is pushing hard to get more than a stopgap measure passed.
Why is it that insecure legislators are willing to “kick the can down the road” (my least favorite clich/) and pass only short-term relief when the whole bill needs to be revamped? For starters, calling it the Farm Bill suggests it only impacts growers and livestock producers and the rural areas that support them.
According to Pettus L. Read, editor of Tennessee Home and Farm magazine and Tennessee Farm Bureau News, it’s so much more. He says it’s really a jobs bill, a food bill, a conservation bill, an energy bill and a trade bill all rolled into one.
“It affects every American,” Read said. “It also affects an industry that provides 23 million jobs.”
As AgriPulse editor Sara Wyant explained, “A large number of farm and rural voters are located in swing states: Colorado, Wisconsin, Iowa and Ohio.” Does that excuse vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan for blocking the Farm Bill’s passage?
The Senate passed its “bipartisan” version and the bill passed the House Agricultural Committee. And then . . . it never was given a vote on the House floor. Who to blame? House Speaker John Boehner? So much for long-term certainty.
As I understand it, there are a few stark differences between the Romney and Obama plans. Obama’s budget would eliminate unnecessary subsidies to large corporate agribusiness while the Romney/Ryan plan would turn food stamps into block grants to the states. Both would cut $30 billion or so over the next 10 years from direct payments and subsidies.
Romney’s campaign issued a list of agriculture “leaders” who support his candidacy. Are they the swing state voters or the agribusiness contributors? You know, the “Super Pac” guys.
Romney stated he is for promoting trade (a no-brainer), repeal of the estate tax (which disproportionately affects farm properties), and a cap on new regulations and executive orders affecting farmers. Would this cap negate rulings on food safety by the FDA or pollution controls by the EPA?
Apparently the GOP is all over the map on this one. The Tea Party wants $16 billion in food stamp cuts. Moderates would accept only $4 billion (following the Senate version). Urban Republicans say they want to eliminate crop subsidies to corporate agriculture that harm small producers and increase funding for conservation and local food production.
On top of that, there is infighting among those who support certain commodities; apparently, it’s the cotton, peanut and rice growers against the corn, soybean and wheat producers. Good grief.
The Bozeman Daily Chronicle published Monday an opinion piece by Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) calling the House decision to ignore the Farm Bill an irresponsible decision.
“As a third-generation dry-land farmer, I know how important long-term safety nets are for Montana’s producers,” he wrote. “When Mother nature shows us who’s boss by turning up the heat or turning off the rain, farmers and ranchers need a responsible safety net, not irresponsible decisions driven by election year politics.”
Sadly, I agree.