|
“The bill passed today is a farm
bill in name only. It does not target help for the farmers who
really need it, and it increases the size and cost of government
while jeopardizing the future of legitimate farm programs by
damaging the credibility of farm bills in general,” said
Agriculture Secretary, Ed Schafer, when Congress cast an
overwhelming vote in favor of the Farm Bill. “At a time of
record setting income for farmers, it sends the wrong message to
the rest of the country who are not experiencing the boom of the
agriculture sector. This bill is loaded with taxpayer funded pet
projects at a time when Americans are struggling to buy
groceries and afford gas to get to work.”
According to USDA, the Farm
Bill—passed in May—spends nearly $20 billion over its original
cost and continues to balance subsidy payments to the wealthy on
the backs of the middle class taxpayer.
“Congress claims that this bill
increases spending by $10 billion, but the real cost is nearly
$20 billion when you include actual government spending that
will occur if this bill becomes law,” said President Bush ahead
of the vote. “Instead of fully offsetting the increased
spending, the bill resorts to a variety of gimmicks, such as
pushing commodity payments outside the budget window. Adding
nearly $20 billion in additional costs to the current ten-year
spending level of approximately $600 billion is excessive,
especially when net farm income is at a record high and food
prices are on the rise. My Administration clearly identified
numerous reforms as essential to justify even a $10 billion
increase in spending, yet this bill includes none of those
reforms in full.”
President Bush vetoed the bill,
but Congress overrode it, slapping each other on the back for
completing a farm bill a year late.
“As more of this 1,700 page
spending bill becomes unveiled, we learn more about the taxpayer
abuses and unsound policy that is in this bill,” said Chick
Connor, Agriculture Deputy Secretary when Bush vetoed the 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.”
Some organizations, like American
Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), seemed genuinely satisfied with
the bloated bill.
“Farm bills are most important in
bad times, and given the cyclical nature of agriculture and the
vagaries of weather, American farmers and ranchers need a basic,
no-frills safety net in place to fall back on as they work to
provide food and fuel for the U.S. and the world,” said Bob
Stallman, AFBF president. “Against a backdrop of growing global
food security concerns, this carefully crafted legislation will
enable America’s farmers and ranchers to continue serving as the
world’s major food producers.”
Perhaps a tradition of favoring
subsidies makes you eager to embrace more of the same.
Mainstream cattle organizations were more circumspect, happiest
for what was not lost, rather than that for anything gained.
“While the new Farm Bill doesn’t
accomplish all of the free-market reforms that were hoped for,
it does contain some areas of improvement over the 2002 Farm
Bill,” said Colin Woodall, NCBA’s executive director of
legislative affairs.
Among improvements, Woodall
cites:
Clarification and simplification of livestock record-keeping
requirements for mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling (COOL),
set to take effect this fall. It also moves the grandfather date
for domestic livestock in the COOL law from January 1, 2008 to
July 15, 2008.
Additional funding for the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). EQIP is also expanded to
include more cattle producers, including organic beef producers
and feedlot operations. Additionally, the Grasslands Reserve
Program and Wetlands Reserve Program were extended through 2012.
Allowing meat processed at state-inspected plants to be shipped
to customers across state lines – a practice currently permitted
only for federally inspected facilities.
Inclusion of $3.807 billion for a
permanent ag disaster aid program. Under this program, farmers
and ranchers who purchase Non-insured Agricultural Program (NAP)
coverage could be eligible to receive compensation for extreme
forage or livestock losses resulting from disasters such as
drought, wildfires and floods.
Exclusion of a provision that
would have limited marketing options for livestock producers by
banning packer ownership of livestock more than 14 days before
slaughter.
A 12% reduction in the ethanol
blender’s tax credit and increased incentives for cellulosic
ethanol production, though the bill does extend (through 2010)
the current 54-cent per gallon ethanol import tariff, which had
been set to expire at the end of this year.
Arguably, the chief failures of the new Farm Bill include:
A two-year extension (through 2010) of the 54-cent per
gallon ethanol import tariff, which had been set to expire at
the end of this year.
Inclusion of Country of Origin
Labeling. While new rules are supposed to make it easier for
producers to comply, it will remain a program without substance
unless individual animal identification and trace-back are core
components.
No provisions for addressing the
Renewable Fuels Policy, which intractably ties food market
fundamentals to those of the energy (see Self-Inflicted Wounds).
“Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle have worked
very hard to deliver a Farm Bill that provides a certain level
of stability and consistency for agricultural producers,” said
Woodall. “No agricultural group is coming away with everything
it wanted. But it’s a bill we can all live with, and it is the
best option available to us at this time.”
For the record, only four Senators failed to vote on the bill
which passed 81 to 15. Among those not voting were all three
senators vying for U.S. presidency. |
