For Nancy Pelosi, a Time to Choose

Late Thursday night, the House Agriculture Committee unanimously passed a farm bill that can only be described as astoundingly unresponsive to widespread calls for reform. That bill may be considered by the full House as soon as this week. Now that the farm bill is out of committee, Nancy Pelosi is the most important player in the process. Speaker Pelosi and the House Rules Committee have to choose - and that choice will say much about how they intend to govern. It brings to mind a question Al might ask - Does the House leadership stand with the people or the powerful?

Speaker Pelosi will effectively decide the outcome of the floor debate. That debate should be held after all Americans have the opportunity to make their voices heard regarding the farm bill that has been passed by the Agriculture Committee- and that means delaying floor consideration of the farm bill until after the August recess. After that, the Speaker has three options.

Option 1: She can live up to the repeated promises of the newly elected majority and allow for a full, open, and honest debate. Option 2: She can short-circuit debate, severely curtail or eliminate the number of amendments for floor consideration, and generally run the House in the same fashion as her predecessors. Option 3: She can support real reform on the central issue of farm policy- ending million-dollar subsidy checks to mega-farms.

The third option appears to be highly unlikely. Here is Pelosi's three part statement regarding the just-passed-out-of-committee farm bill:

"The Farm Bill represents a critical first step toward reform by eliminating payments to millionaires,

Not so fast. The Committee's sham reform proposal lowered the adjusted gross income limit on farm program payments to a still-astonishing $1,000,000. And if you're married the limit is $2,000,000. Are we supposed to be pleased by this? Who in their right mind thinks this is actual reform?

Contact Pelosi and tell her to reject the Ag Committee's false reform.

Back to the Speaker....


closing loopholes that permit evasion of payment limits,

Hogwash. First, the House Ag Committee closed two loopholes but left others wide open, so those wishing to evade limits will simply restructure their operations to take advantage of the remaining loopholes. Not only that, but out of three farm programs the existing payment limit was raised by 50% on one and removed entirely on another. Not much in the way of improvement here.

Contact Pelosi and tell her to reject the Ag Committee's false reform.

Back to the Speaker....

and promoting our nation's family farmers.

This is the one that makes the blood boil. Under the House farm bill, we will continue handing out million-dollar checks to some of the richest people in all of America. We'll continue subsidizing mega-farms to drive their smaller neighbors out of business. We'll continue to steal billions from one of the best conservation programs. We'll continue to fail to invest in the future of our rural communities. This is "promoting our nation's family farmers"? I don't think so. This is about handing out very large checks to a very small number of people.

The evident defense for this laughable "reform" proposal is the claim that real reform would cost rural Democrats elections. That is complete drivel of the highest order. We've written many times about how poll after poll shows that farmers and rural Americans understand and want real payment limits.

Thanks for your help.

Contact Speaker Pelosi by calling (202) 225-0100, sending an email to americanvoices@mail.house.gov, or by clicking here.



Display:


Re: For Nancy Pelosi, a Time to Choose (3.00 / 2)

Good work Dan, thanks.

Any idea how much Archer-Daniels-Midland is getting from the government these days?


by global yokel on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 01:44:20 AM EST

Re: For Nancy Pelosi, a Time to Choose (3.00 / 2)

ADM doesn't mess around when it comes to getting rich off the feds.  I can't specify any particular amount.  However, they are an enormous producer of ethanol.  If I recall correctly, they produce 500-600 million galls of ethanol per year.  Oil companies receive a 51 cent per gallon tax credit for the ethanol they blend with their gas.  Obviously, that benefit flows to those who produce the ethanol.  In that sense, ADM is receiving somewhere in the neighborhood of $300 million from the government- every year.
The Center for Rural Affairs has been saying that the tax credit should only go to farmer-owned ethanol plants (coops) who produce their ethanol in an environmentally conscious manner.  If we're giving such a big taxpayer subsidy, it should only go to ethanol producers that provide the most possible benefit to their communities and the environment.
Dan Owens works for the Center for Rural Affairs. Read more at the Blog for Rural America.
by Dan Owens on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 02:33:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For Nancy Pelosi, a Time to Choose (none / 0)

Dan - isn't ADM (or was) a CORPORATE sponsor of PBS's centri$t/rightist News Hour?
Of course, corporate sponsors of News Hour - considered to be a "credible" news source - also include Toyota, AT&T, Chevron....
Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 08:49:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For Nancy Pelosi, a Time to Choose (none / 0)

Yes.  I could be wrong, but I think that they started sponsoring soon after their CEO went to jail for price-fixing.  We all know how rare that is, so you can imagine the severity of his transgressions.  


Dan Owens works for the Center for Rural Affairs. Read more at the Blog for Rural America.
by Dan Owens on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 01:03:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For Nancy Pelosi, a Time to Choose (3.00 / 2)

I'd be happy to shoot her an emaail, but could you give a 3 sentence example of what the policy content should be?  Cut big subsidies, help local and organic farmers, make fruits and vegetables affordable... something like that?


Sam L
by Sam L on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 09:05:56 AM EST

Re: For Nancy Pelosi, a Time to Choose (none / 0)

Thanks for your help.  
First Point- The House Agriculture Committee is not real reform, will not end million-dollar subsidy checks, and she needs to withdraw her support.

Second- She needs to allow full and honest debate on the floor- not protect the farm bill from any and all amendments.

Third- Say once and for all that this farm bill is about supporting small and mid-size family farms and investing in the future of rural communities and a positive food system.  That can be done a variety of ways (local foods, organics, rural economic development, etc) but it cannot be done if we continue to send out unlimitied farm program checks to mega-farms.


Dan Owens works for the Center for Rural Affairs. Read more at the Blog for Rural America.
by Dan Owens on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 08:44:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For Nancy Pelosi, a Time to Choose (none / 0)

There are several hit pieces by the corporate press today on John Edwards - after he exposed the vast poverty in cities, small towns, and rural areas in the richest nation on earth.
The media, their corporate sponsors, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce certainly don't want the lie exposed that the only people who don't work are those who don't WANT to work, or are too damn lazy!
John Edwards led a throng of reporters to areas where the working poor ARE WORKING! but few have workers' rights with corporations that do not provide a living wage.

Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 09:06:00 AM EST

Thanks Dan (none / 0)

I'm glad to see a watchdog on this and absolutely it is time to choose.  From what I understand this bill is yet another corporate pig fest for special interests and isn't supportive of the small family farmer or organic farming.

We need much more analysis, in depth.  This is not my watchdog area, but because it will affect US workers, family farmers and also I think it is the national economic interest to support our own food supply through the family farm, I want more more more coverage.  I hope you're going to take on the job.


NoSlaves.com | The Economic Populist
by Robert Oak on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 01:50:26 PM EST

Re: Thanks Dan (none / 0)

Thanks for the kind words.   Much of our analysis can be found on the Center for Rural Affairs blog, www.cfra.org/blog.  Additionally, you can find more by searching the "farm bill" tag on mydd, which is on our blog posts as well as the posts of several other excellent authors.  We'll continue to cover the political process, I assure you.  
My very brief analysis is this:  In 2007, the farm bill in the House has followed the path of previous farm bills, which is this:  find more money for conservation, nutrition, and a few other things that those annoying farm bill activists want.  If you can find enough money for that, they won't complain too loudly about unlimited subsidy checks, and everyone can go home happy.
Except that formula doesn't take into account that unlimited subsidy checks are causing substantial harm to family farming and inevitably divert resources away from more worthy priorities (this becomes even more true when budgets are tight, like they are now.  They weren't in 2002).  Thankfully, more and more people are realizing that farm programs do not exist in a vacuum.  Unlimited farm programs use taxpayer dollars to subsidize the destruction of family farming, and they also are antithetical to conservation goals.  Many consider them to be detrimental to public health.  So just throwing money at those interested in organics, the environment, etc. is not good enough.  You have to reform farm programs if you want to make a difference, period.  
Dan Owens works for the Center for Rural Affairs. Read more at the Blog for Rural America.
by Dan Owens on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 01:01:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For Nancy Pelosi, a Time to Choose (none / 0)

Thanks Dan for the great post!  For more about this farm bill, go to http://www.mulchblog.com


by parkerofnc on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 01:56:49 PM EST

Re: For Nancy Pelosi, a Time to Choose (none / 0)

Thanks.  For those interested, Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group writes most of the Mulch Blog posts.  He has some great posts in response to the House's junk farm bill proposal.  I highly recommend visiting.  


Dan Owens works for the Center for Rural Affairs. Read more at the Blog for Rural America.
by Dan Owens on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 01:07:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

More info (none / 0)

I went following links and found some great blogs who certainly need some more readers to get a handle on what is in this bill.

From Rural Populist

He has a list of the top big ag business, the amount of subsidies they are getting and how the draft of the FARM bill (unsure if this is what came out of committee) is basically protecting them (big ag).

From Mulchblog

A new online database, developed by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) from millions of previously unpublished USDA subsidy records, provides nearly full disclosure of federal farm subsidy beneficiaries for the first time. The disclosures include individuals, sometimes numbering in the dozens, whose subsidy benefits pass through one or more plantation-scale farm businesses that produce vast quantities of subsidized cotton, rice and other crops. Many of those businesses receive millions in USDA crop subsidies each year, and according to the new USDA data, pass six-figure benefits through to many people. In many cases, these individuals have not previously had subsidy benefits attributed to them by name.

As the 2007 farm bill reauthorization enters its critical final phase, the new EWG Policy Analysis Database underscores the need for Congress to rethink the fundamental goals of farm programs and to enact new rules for determining who will benefit - and how they will benefit - from federal assistance to agriculture and rural America for the next 5 years.

Some 350,000 people who previously have not been identified as direct recipients of federal farm subsidy money by EWG have actually been the beneficiaries of almost a third of the $34.75 billion in crop subsidies provided by American taxpayers between 2003 and 2005 alone.

Notice the use of the term plantation.  That is one ominous term that is putting this entire bill in a new light to me.


NoSlaves.com | The Economic Populist
by Robert Oak on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 03:02:17 PM EST

Re: More info (none / 0)

Good Points.  Rural Populist is written by a colleague of mine, Brian Depew.  For even more analyis, you can visit the Washington Post's Harvesting Cash webpage:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nat ion/interactives/farmaid/

The Post published many articles analyzing farm programs over a year long period.  Most of them are excellent.  In the plantation vein, I recommend this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/06/19/AR2007061902193_ pf.html

Here's the Headline:
A Slow Demise in the Delta
U.S. Farm Subsidies Favor Big Over Small, White Over Black

You get the idea.  To further go into the plantation analogy, I can tell you one in four agricultural acres in Iowa is now owned by an investor, not a farmer.  They rent the land to farmers.  I would argue strenuously that those people who don't live on the land will never care as much about conservation, rural communities, etc. as farmers who own the land they work.  Investors will always demand the greatest return possible, withougt regard environmental degradation or other negative effects.  When you remove the landowner from the community, bad things happen.  


Dan Owens works for the Center for Rural Affairs. Read more at the Blog for Rural America.
by Dan Owens on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 01:15:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you kidding? (3.00 / 1)

Does the House leadership stand with the people or the powerful?

I have to assume this is a rhetorical question.

Pelosi & Co. pander to the people from time to time, but they work for the corporate ruling class. Matthew 12:33.


by James Earl on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 03:46:35 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.