Deputy Ag Secretary Weighs In on President's Farm Bill Veto

Here's the latest from Washington on the Farm Bill. Remember, don't shoot the messenger....

WASHINGTON, May 21, 2008- "Today the President vetoed a piece of legislation that failed to implement meaningful reform to our farm programs while increasing taxpayer spending by over $20 billion. This massive spending package - in a time of escalating food prices and gas closing in on $4 a gallon - is simply unacceptable.

The President has stated time and time again that he would not accept a farm bill that fails to reform farm programs at a time when farm income and crop prices are setting records, and he has remained true to his word. It is irresponsible to ask the American taxpayer who is struggling to make ends meet, to subsidize farm couples and those who make more than a million dollars a year. This is bad policy, and unfair.

The U.S. Farm economy has never been stronger.

The Administration supports our farmers and ranchers, and has sought out good policies that will move agriculture and rural America forward. Unfortunately, this bill continues to support programs that benefit those who do not need it, and because of this, our non-farmers in America are justifiably questioning the rationale and fairness behind farm bills in general.

As more of this 1700 page spending bill becomes unveiled, we learn more about the taxpayer abuses and unsound policy that is in this bill. Just recently it was brought to light that a $170 million earmark for the salmon industry was slipped into this bill at the last moment. It joins other egregious earmarks, such as millions for a ski resort in Vermont and $250 million for a federal land grab in Montana. And Congress, has included last minute changes to the so-called ACRE farm subsidy program that likely will result in tens of billions of new government outlays in the future.

Yet the Congress claims this provision saves money.

To pay for this bill, Congress relies on budget gimmicks such as timing shifts of payments and forcing some businesses to pay their taxes early to help cover the $20 billion in extra spending in this bill.

For more than a year, the Administration worked with Congress in an effort to develop a good farm bill that the President could sign. We worked to craft a measure that brought real reform to farm programs while working to protect the safety net for rural America. We based our proposal on comments from all across America, and concentrated on policies that targeted farmers who really needed help. This included ending subsidies to the wealthiest Americans ---- those with an adjusted gross income of over $200,000.

Yet Congress decided to go in another direction, and sent the President a bill that grossly overspends in typical Washington, DC fashion.

This veto is the right thing to do, and Congress should support the President's decision. The Congress should extend the current farm bill rather than jeopardize America's support for the farm bill with wasteful spending that fails to target payments to farmers who really need the support."

Farmers in EU Must Go Green or Lose Handouts

"We want to see more funding diverted from production subsidies towards targeted measures which will improve our landscape and biodiversity." - British Environment Secretary Hilary Benn

The Environmental Working Group has the same agenda. It does not want subsidies to cease. It simply wants them reallocated for its own purposes.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

BRUSSELS, Belgium-(Telegraph)--Under the current system, farmers across Europe are told how much they can grow and are paid to leave 10 per cent of their land fallow.

But following proposed changes announced on Tuesday to the Common Agricultural Policy, which at £32 billion a year accounts for 40 per cent of the EU's budget, subsidies for large farms will be capped.

The compulsory "set-aside" system which was developed to avoid the build-up of grain mountains will also be scrapped to bring up to 12 million acres back into usage.

These payments had already been suspended because of a worldwide grain shortage which is pushing up food prices, but will now be permanently stopped under the terms of the Common Agricultural Policy Health Check.

Instead, to carry on receiving subsidies farmers will have to make eco-friendly improvements to their land.

They will get payments based on the area of land they farm in environmentally friendly ways – such as limiting their use of pesticides – instead of according to how much they produce.

The plan to subsidise rural development was welcomed by Britain's Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn, as a way to help the fight against climate change and to boost biodiversity.

"The UK is encouraging farmers to manage their land in a more environmentally beneficial way," he said. "We want to see more funding diverted from production subsidies towards targeted measures which will improve our landscape and biodiversity."

He added: "The Health Check must also phase out all the price support measures which have kept consumer prices high and the export subsidies which have undermined farmers in developing countries."

The move away from subsidies tied to production will allow farmers to decide what to grow and respond quicker to the market, according to the EU's agriculture commissioner, Mariann Fischer Boel.

She said the proposals would increase production and so help combat food price inflation.

"I think it is not the time in a situation like this to micro-manage farmers," she said.

Other provisions include an end to the current £36 per acre subsidy for biofuels, and a slight increase in milk production quotas ahead of their eventual abolition in 2015.

The commission's plan must now be approved by the EU's 27 member states and the European Parliament.

Researchers Develop Software to Demonstrate Food Vs. Fuel Factors

URBANA, Ill.-(Grainnet)--Symptoms of the food-versus-fuel crisis are appearing regularly in the news but the underlying causes--and long-term implications--are poorly understood, said a University of Illinois agricultural economics professor.

"An important component of the food-versus-fuel debate that is not well understood is how increases in wealth for Asian consumers are dramatically affecting the markets for commodities worldwide," said Peter Goldsmith, director of the National Soybean Research Laboratory and an associate professor in the U of I's Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics.

To help fill that knowledge gap, Goldsmith, Tad Masuda, a postdoctoral researcher, and Barbara Mirel of the University of Michigan have built a 3-D computer model that visually conveys the interrelationship and impacts of income changes around the world on consumption, production, and markets.]

To finish reading the article, click HERE.

Farm Bill Takes Prisoners

WASHINGTON-(Forbes)--Congress and the White House appear headed for a final showdown on a new farm bill this week. Lawmakers say legislation is ready for a vote. The president says he will veto it. Whether the bill has enough support to override--two-thirds from both the House and Congress--remains unknown.

No one is more anxious for an outcome than the nation's food banks, which have found their future funding held hostage to endless rounds of political debate over the most controversial parts of the legislation, even as the lines at their doors grow weekly.

Only 20% of the $300 billion farm bill consists of farm programs, but that draws all the debate. The bill's most derided provision, the direct payment subsidy program, which doles out payments for wheat, cotton, corn and soybean growers, is just $5 billion a year. The majority of the funding, 60%, goes to various nutrition programs. The largest increase proposed in the bill: $10 billion of undisputed funding for food stamps.

Not that the debate over subsidies isn't worthwhile. Recipients rarely want to see them cut, but with most crops selling at record price levels and projected to stay high for years, many have argued the time to reduce these programs is now. A key sticking point between President Bush and Congress has been these supports. Currently, the subsidy goes to those earning as much as $2.5 million a year. Congress would reduce this to farmers earning under $750,000. The president would like those earning more than $200,000 a year to be ineligible, a reasonable compromise.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate's Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, has said that vetoing the farm bill would destroy the harvest. Farmers are less concerned, says Phillip Fraas, an attorney who represents some agribusiness clients and maintains a blog about the bill's progress. They're "generally happy with the current farm bill, and would probably be OK with another extension," he says.

Vicki Escarra, chief executive of America's Second Harvest, the country's largest food bank, would be less pleased. The additional funding locked inside the legislation is needed, she says, as food and fuel prices rise across America. "The nutrition title of this bill offers the first real opportunity in years to reach more of the 35 million people in this country (12 million of them children) who are facing hunger," she said a recent letter to the president.

It's hard to argue. Perhaps the best move now is for Congress to decouple the food funding from the farm bill, so while Washington does its work, Escarra and others can do the same.

Wall Street Journal Opposes Farm Bill

Evidently, Ken Cook has tapped into the Wall Street Journal. Stephen Moore, WSJ senior economics writer for the opinion page, expresses the EWG's views almost as if he had visited its site before doing the interview.

Unfortunately, Moore fails to cover several notable factors farmers face such as higher input costs (fuel, fertilizer, seed, pesticides) and increased risk in an EXTREMELY volatile market.

Oh yeah, one more thing: farm subsidies lower domestic grocery prices and do not raise them.

Syndicated Columnist Weighs In On Farm Policy

Syndicated columnist John Brummett weighs in on farm policy in this May 13 piece taken from the Arkansas News Bureau. No doubt, Mr. Brummett can turn a phrase. If he was equally adept at understanding the issues facing farmers today (as well as those of the "average Joe" who doesn't live in an ivory tower), maybe he could make a meaningful contribution to the farm policy discourse instead of taking agenda driven potshots at folks who know what it means to sweat - literally and figuratively - for a living.

Click HERE to read his column.

Conner: Farm Bill Unveiled Last Week Would Spark Additional WTO Challenges

The Bush Administration says the farm bill, unveiled last week by Congressional negotiators, will actually generate more scrutiny from WTO officials wanting payment reforms. Stewart Doan has more on that story:





Conner says two provisions in the Farm Bill Conference Report would give the U.S. major problems with its international trading partners:

House and Senate Move Toward Farm Bill Vote in Upcoming Week

WASHINGTON-(WashingtonView)--The House and Senate Conference Committee on the Farm Bill has reached an agreement which is moving toward a final vote next week in the House and Senate.

As of late Thursday, May 8, the President has made clear he will veto the bill in its present form.

While Senate leaders believe they have a veto-proof majority, House members say a lot of work needs to be done to get the two-thirds majority to overide the President's veto if it comes to that.

In the meantime, click the link below to read about the final proposal. It affects you, whether you live on the farm or in the city. And please, show this proposal to anyone you know that eats food.

Click HERE to read the proposal.

Lawmaker Believes Farm Bill Will Withstand Veto Threat

Members of Congress have stated they might override a presidential veto of the Farm Bill.
Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.), a member of the House Agriculture Committee AND House Ways and Means Committee and a key player in the marathon negotiating sessions, said the Farm Bill has bipartisan support, and he hopes the President avoids a showdown with Congress and signs the bill into law.

Pomeroy says Congress almost has the new bill ready.




Pomeroy says Congress has listened carefully to the President Bush's concerns, and he hopes it will craft a bill the President will approve.




Pomeroy says he supports ethanol mandates and that he doesn't think ethanol has played as large a role in rising food prices as have other factors.




Pomeroy points out that more than two-thirds of the Farm Bill involves indirect agricultural issues such as nutrition and other related programs.

Congress Sends Farm Bill Extension to President

And the delays continue on a new Farm Bill. Here's the latest...

Congress Sends Farm Bill Extension to President

WASHINGTON-(farm Progress)--Both the House and Senate passed a two-week extension of the 2002 Farm Bill on Thursday. The extension will run until May 16, 2008. The President is expected to sign the extension although he has misgivings about the current state of the bill. Last Friday, negotiators reached a tentative agreement on funding the bill but are still resolving the policy. The bill's negotiators have tried to appease Bush in the last few days, agreeing on stricter limits for payments. However, the reforms are not as much as the President asked for.

Farm-state lawmakers have said they don't have the votes for more drastic cutbacks, mostly due to opposition from Southerners who represent cotton and rice farms, which are more expensive to run. Senate Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., met Thursday with Bush to urge him to support the legislation. A spokeswoman said the meeting gave Chambliss "the opportunity to outline significant reforms" in the negotiators' current proposal.

Farm Bill Conference Committee Chair Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, called a meeting of all conference committee members Thursday evening to go through amendments and titles. However he says another meeting will be necessary next week after the Congressional Budget Office scores the title changes made earlier this week.