The Fight for Agriculture Continues

While there are many national publications that cover agriculture on a daily basis, there are only a few situations where major news outlets pickup up an agriculture story and continue to provide coverage. Widespread drought or images of massive flood waters covering mile after mile of farm land seem to hold their attention through several news cycles as long as shocking images are available to enhance the story.

Fear mongering ag stories, championed by special interest groups, regardless of facts, also seem to develop a life of their own with an abundance of coverage from news sources where interest in agriculture is rare.

Once in a great while the stars seem to align—drought, national elections and an expiring farm bill have every media outlet not only interest in agriculture but ready to take an aggressive position on what direction U.S. farm policy should take over the next five years.

Below is a small sample of opinions from three major newspapers, none of which offer any support to our customers, the farmers, who continue to feed the ungrateful.

The Wall Street Journal recently used its opinion page to blast the farm bill as a “boondoggle” and rejoiced that House leadership has been unable to muster the votes needed to bring the bill to the floor.

In the article, the author believes Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor don’t want a vote that will highlight party infighting and lock in five years of farm spending before a debate over spending and taxes, which will be coming in the months, following the elections.

The WSJ in the article said, despite Ag Chairman Lucas’ assurances, his product is “fiscally responsible”, with 80% of the increased spending financing a soaring food-stamp program at historic levels. The article said this administration realizes any reforms threaten its tax-hike leverage and food-stamp expansions-which is why it is pushing so hard to get the spending baked-in now.

Ag Secretary Vilsack confirmed as much when he recently warned against letting farm programs get, “embroiled in conversations of sequester and tax policy.”

The Chicago Tribune took time from covering unionized teachers walking off the job to offer an editorial on ag policy, calling both Senate and House agriculture committee passed versions of the farm bill, indefensible handouts to the farm sector. “Better a temporary extension that takes farm programs through the November 6 election, than a millstone that for the five-year duration of the bill would line the pockets of farm-insurance purveyors, distort the marketplace for vital commodities and drain the federal budget.”

The Tribune article writes of hope for a post-election Congress, that will be compelled to deal with the broader issue of national debt as a result of the automatic spending cuts and tax increases that will kick in at year-end without action to forestall it. “Viewed in the broader context of what America can afford once its leaders finally come under deadline pressure to make difficult fiscal choices, the Farm Bill’s poorly conceived subsidy regime should fail on its merits.”

Not to be out done, The New York Times provided space on its oped page to blame the farm bill proposals for global warming. “The farm bill is not only the centerpiece of United States food and agriculture policy, it is also a de facto climate bill. And in this respect, both the Senate and House versions of the legislation are a disaster waiting to happen… Not only would the (farm) bill accelerate global warming by encouraging more greenhouse gas emissions, it would make the nation’s farms more vulnerable to the impacts of those emissions.”

We offer the above not to discourage members but as a reminder of the forces aligned against a fair and stable farm policy and the reason our members need to make their own voices heard.