Work on the new farm bill is beginning to move forward. As with similar legislation in the past, various farm groups are submitting their proposals to Congress trying to protect and promote the specific interests of their constituents. There is one big difference this time around… any bill that gets passed will be closely scrutinized for its impact on the federal budget. Or better stated, there’s a lot less money to pass around now and there will be a special emphasis on making sure that funds are being spent wisely.
Earlier this week, U.S. Agricultural Secretary Thomas Vilsack outlined his priorities for the 2012 bill in a speech to workers in Ankeny, IA, as outlined in this abcnews.com article (Vilsack Says Farm Bill Must Improve Disaster Aid). Aid to farmers affected by natural disaster, increased funding for agricultural research, and support for conservation projects were at the top of his list. He admitted that USDA programs will need to be streamlined and easier to understand – a common complaint in the past.
I think that it is important to point out that nearly 75% of the existing $284 billion bill is used for nutrition, e.g. food stamps and school lunch programs. Not that I don’t deem this programs worthy… they are. But I think there are many people that believe that the Farm Bill only rewards the producers of agricultural products, without realizing that many of their friends and neighbors are also probably benefitting.
One important provision that likely will be eliminated in the new bill – direct payments to farmers and landowners. While conceptually the idea of direct payments seemed like a reasonable way to transition farmers away from government support, the reality (especially with record high commodity prices) bordered on a public relations disaster – “rich farmers are earning record profits and still receiving government subsidies.” This program is likely to be replaced with an improved insurance program that will protect producers when a true natural disaster strikes, as we’ve seen in Texas this year.
If history is a good indictor, then the final bill will likely be somewhat different than the pre-bill discussions. And as mentioned earlier, the impact on the budget may be what ultimately decides the program’s fate.
