Farm Bill Payment Limits: Part 1

Farm SteadDan Owens is a Rural Policy Organizer at the Center for Rural Affairs in Lyons, Nebraska. This is part of Farm Bill blogging.

For over 20 years progressive farm activists have fought to stop government subsidies that destroy family farming. The current system of unlimited subsidy checks for large farms increases land prices, puts family size farms at a disadvantage, and ultimately undercuts rural communities.

Politicians from rural areas have been slow to recognize this, however. Instead, rural politicians wax eloquent about saving family farms while repeatedly passing farm programs that subsidize their demise.

The hypocrisy has been bipartisan.

With a few notable exceptions, northern representatives have given lip service to reforming farm programs, but folded when confronted by the opposition of large farm interests from the South. Elected officials who should know better typically justify unlimited payments as a necessary evil, to maintain the "farm coalition" and get as much money as soon as possible for farm payments.

This is a profound mistake.

Unlimited payments that subsidize large, aggressively expanding operations are a fundamental cause of family farm decline. They exacerbate the family farm decline that farm programs were supposed to address.

Progressive farm and rural leaders continue to push for farm program payment limits, and the issue continues to emerge during farm bill years.

The most recent effort played out in March of this year when Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) introduced an amendment to the budget resolution bill calling for limiting subsidies to the nation's largest farms.

The Grassley-Dorgan amendment was a nonbinding resolution calling on the Agriculture Committee to cap farm subsidies at $250,000 per year. A cap of $250,000 means that family farmers would still get the support they need, but big farms would no longer have the unfair advantage of nearly unlimited government checks. Grassley-Dorgan called for the money saved to be reinvested in conservation, rural development, and nutrition programs.

In the end, Senators Grassley and Dorgan withdrew the amendment at the request of the Senate leadership. Senate leaders had counted the votes and concluded the amendment would pass, but feared it would cause southern Senators to block passage of the entire federal budget. To get them to pull the amendment, Senate leadership promised a vote on Grassley-Dorgan in the upcoming farm bill debate.

In my opinion, Senator Grassley introduced the amendment specifically to secure this outcome.

Now they are back. The Grassley-Dorgan proposal has returned as Senate Bill 1486. The bill would cap payments to any one farmer at $250,000 per year and close the loopholes that currently exist. Look for future posts that will explain some of the details of this proposal, why it is a key part of progressive reform, and updates on the bill's status.



Display:


Re: Farm Bill Payment Limits: Part 1 (none / 0)

Here's the OpenCongress page on Senate bill 1486:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s14 86/show


end the occupation of Iraq
by aip on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 03:22:00 AM EST

Farm Bill Payment Limits (none / 0)

Very interesting.  I did assume the opposite, silly me.  I should know by now that politicians don't help people, then help corporations.   Having said that, I'm pretty tired of farm bills.  I sit in Michigan, a state devastated by Bill Clinton's NAFTA; and it hasn't gotten a dime's worth of attention or support by any politician, including Michigan's beltway Dems.   Consequently, I have little interest or sympathy for funding any industry whatsoever.  Let them eat cake!


Follow the money
by dkmich on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 07:34:34 AM EST

Re: Farm Bill Payment Limits: Part 1 (none / 0)

Setting policy is about choosing the kind of society you want to live in. The farm bill only comes up once every half-decade. This is no time to throw up our hands and walk away from the table.


by johnalive on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 07:50:31 AM EST

Re: Farm Bill Payment Limits: Part 1 (none / 0)

This bill could be a to return to a prairie populist tradition for family farmers. See
http://beef-mag.com/mag/beef_prairie_pop ulism/

"[Sen.Byron] Dorgan traces the roots of prairie populism to the early 20th century, when farmers organized, developed an agenda and took control of the political process. In 1916, North Dakota's Non-Partisan League (NPL) surprised the state's dominant Republican Party and elected a governor. In 1918, the NPL reelected the governor and won control of the legislature. It passed legislation creating the Bank of North Dakota (BND), still the nation's only state bank, along with North Dakota Mill and Elevator Association and state hail insurance."

Is it too much to hope for that the Democratic party debates would include questions about family farms vs. corporate farms, global trade impact on family farms, the issue of starvation among the poor of  the world?

Just asking for some critical thinking here.


by mrobinsong on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:39:07 AM EST

The bull point about Grassley-Dorgan (none / 0)

I'm struggling with an Eiger-like learning curve here with the actual issues.

But, as a possible rallying point for public opinion, it seems to me that Grassley-Dorgan scores as being explainable to Sixpack in a soundbite:

Capping the subsidies hits at corporate welfare for the fat cats while protecting the family farm. With some decent visuals, that's 20 seconds tops on the nightly news.

Much the same as §123 which preempts state and local exclusion of GMOs.

Whereas most of the issues in the bill are not so congenial to the newbie.

(Believe me!)


by skeptic06 on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 12:49:11 PM EST

Important post that should have many (none / 0)

comments.  We must keep making the connections between farm  bills and monopolies and our food safety.  We must link it with immigration and trade policies.
Here's an interesting article called "Ethanol Booms, Farmers Bust"  http://www.alternet.org/story/52073/

And another one called "Migration and Corn"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sally-kohn /migration-and-corn_b_48801.html

With the awareness of tainted pet food, tooth paste and chicken and hog feed, maybe we can get all voters urban and rural to take a look at these food monopolies like Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, Tyson, Cargill, and put a stop to it like we tried to do a hundred years ago and got some of it done.  
Can someone write a diary on the New Deal price supports and how they differ from these big corporation subsidies?


Join the Feral Cats of Freedom Coughing Up Hairballs of Truth in the Montana Underbrush
by Feral Cat on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 06:24:55 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.