This is a side-by-side rebuttal of (Democratic) Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack’s spin about the (Democratic) Senate’s Farm Bill that passed earlier this summer. (https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2013/06/11/statement-secretary-vilsack-senate-farm-bill-passage ) Please don’t take this out of context. The Democrats are consistently better than the Republicans on the lesser issues of the farm bill, (and were great historically, prior to 2002, on the greater issues). It’s generally always better to support Democratic farm policy, than Republican farm policy. In fact, traditionally, and from the 1980s through 2001, populist Democrats, led by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin and Missouri Representative Dick Gephardt, supported great Farm Bills. Unfortunately, when Harkin became Senate Ag chair in 2002, that all changed, and they switched over to a pathetic greened up version of the Republican Freedom to Farm Bill (“Freedom to Fail,” which reduced farmers’ flexibility and freedom).
(Author’s Note: This diary was designed with Courier New Bold font, size 12, and lines up when set in that way.)
Secretary Vilsack Said: Brad says:
“I’m very pleased that the Senate We are strongly DISpleased that
acted in bipartisan spirit today the Senate acted in a DIVISIVE
to approve the Agriculture spirit that hurt farmers and
Reform, Food and Jobs Act. consumers while favoring
……………………………………….. agribusiness special interests, in
……………………………………….. approving a farm bill containing NO
……………………………………….. real reform for good food, farms &
……………………………………….. jobs, in direct contrast to the
……………………………………….. spin of Vilsack & Congress.
I am grateful for the Senate’s We canNOT in any way be grateful
progress toward providing a that the Senate made the so-
reformed safety net for producers called “safety net” significantly
in times of need, supporting worse for farmers, opposed any
agricultural research & trade significant reform of ag research,
promotion, honoring World Trade and paved the way for
Organization commitments, the US to again lose money on
……………………………………….. farm exports and massively dump
……………………………………….. farm exports, in violation of any
……………………………………….. adequate standard of fair trade.
furthering the bio-based economy, Like the Vilsack supported “Iowa
conserving our natural resources, 2010″ plan, it fosters ag
strengthening local and regional concentration in a bio-tech power
food systems, and promoting job complex that thwarts local and
growth in rural America. regional food systems, and
……………………………………………. maintains an assault on rural
……………………………………………. wealth and jobs creation,
……………………………………………. and on conservation.
As the legislative process moves Like the legislative process, the
forward, the Administration will President’s budget is
continue to seek policy solutions disastrously prioritized, and as
and savings consistent with the we feared the
President’s Budget, and we are House of Reps. produced a bill
hopeful that the House of with those same goals in mind.
Representatives will produce a Free farm markets chronically fail,
bill with those same goals in mind. devastating rural wealth creation.
……………………………………………. This bill ignores that, (ignores,
……………………………………………. losing money on farm exports,
……………………………………………. maintaining low farm income.
……………………………………………. Instead of export profits, it absurdly
……………………………………………. writes a check to everyone in the
……………………………………………. market, continuing huge costs
……………………………………………. needed only because of their
……………………………………………. choice to lose money on exports.
Swift action is needed so Here again we see Congress
that American farmers and rushing through a farm bill
ranchers and our rural during the busiest time of year
communities have the certainty for farmers, with no willingness
they need to continue to act for the economic vitality of
strengthening the rural and farmers & rural communities, thus
national economy. again missing an opportunity to
……………………………………….. help us recover from the
……………………………………….. devastations of the past, and
……………………………………….. make a positive contribution to
……………………………………….. national economy. More specifically, since
……………………………………….. the new proposals follow the pattern of
……………………………………….. “decoupled” “revenue insurance,” they
……………………………………….. feature floating standards of need where
……………………………………….. farm prices can fall severely but support
……………………………………….. is severely reduced, or farm prices could
……………………………………….. rise dramatically, and yet money would be
……………………………………….. squandered on unneeded subsidies. So
……………………………………….. for farmers seeking credit from bankers,
……………………………………….. and other lenders, these proposals provide
……………………………………….. no “certainty” for making loans.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate
1 Comment
The 2014 “bi-partisan” Farm Bill turned out like we feared. Passed under the banner of “risk management, in hindsight it was primarily risk increasing (http://agpolicy.org/weekcol/2019/972.html, http://agpolicy.org/weekcol/2018/954.html). In 2014 when farmer signed up, ARC looked better than PLC for Corn Soybeans and other feedgrains. (In 2014 and 2018 farm bills PLC greatly favored peanuts and rice over these crops. https://familyfarmjustice.me/2017/07/14/dear-ag-sec-perdue-why-are-peanuts-favored-over-corn-wheat-soybeans-and-oats/). So 92% of corn farmers, (97% in Iowa,) and 96% of soybean farmers gambled on ARC, and it was hugely the wrong choice. As corn and soybean prices went down, down, down, farmers got less, not more, in subsidies, got no subsidies for 2017 & 2018. http://agpolicy.org/weekcol/2018/954.html Maps show vast areas receiving no subsidies, for corn https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/arc-plc/pdf/October-2018-updates/2017_ARCCO_Corn_Payment_Rates_by_County.pdf, for soybeans, https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/arc-plc/pdf/October-2018-updates/2017_ARCCO_Soybeans_Payment_Rates_by_County.pdf, etc.