|
With passage of the farm bill, the House of Representatives forfeited
the opportunity to do something this country hasn't tried since the New
Deal of the 1930s: It could have taken steps to rejuvenate rural
America.
Hit "read more" to continue... ***************
In the year I was born, 1950, there were 13 houses
along our road in the far northwest corner of Missouri. All of them
were farm homes. Today, nine houses are left, and I am the only farmer
or farm owner living here.
What's happened along my road is
also true across vast areas of the Midwest, where farm consolidation
over the past three decades - big farms gobbling up small ones - has
taken its toll, not just on farmers but on the communities that once
relied on farmers for trade and taxes.
Consolidation and loss
of rural population have been direct consequences of the past several
farm bills. By increasing subsidies, Congress made it profitable for
the most aggressive operators to accumulate more land and scoop up a
large share of the farm bill's allotments.
While the stated
purpose of farm bills has always been to maintain the family farm, in
reality the Congress has brought about the family farm's decline.
The House might have fashioned a 2007 New Deal for Rural America. It
would have started with real subsidy limits, making mega-farms less
profitable. That step should have been easy.
There is so much
demand now for grains - as both fuel and food - that, finally, we have
strong, demand-driven markets. Now is the perfect time to move grain
farms away from direct payments while ensuring crop yields and revenue.
It's been said that farmers live as paupers and die as millionaires.
While many farmers look rich on paper, few have million-dollar
earnings. In fact, most farms earn only about a 5 percent return on
investment. In low production years of drought or flood, farmers can
lose money.
In reality, farmers are wage earners who invest in
their own employment. When our profits decline due to poor markets or
bad weather, not only our investments but our wages too are at risk.
The misguided crop subsidy program that the House maintained protects
large farms, but doesn't go far enough to support small farmers. It
excludes livestock producers, many of whom are suffering through an
epic drought.
What producers really need is a safety net that
is not paid out as a "bigger is better" stipend - the incentive that
has folded family farms into sprawling agribusiness. What farmers want
is the comforting knowledge that when bad luck, bad weather or bad
markets come (and they always do), there will be a mechanism, an
insurance policy, there to soften the blow.
The House could
have offered real assistance to local producers willing to grow food in
sustainable and humane ways. Legislators could have protected livestock
raisers from contracts with multinational meat packers who force
farmers to absorb most business costs and all the risks.
Instead, the House bypassed the most vulnerable farmers and, in the
meekest of reforms, limited subsidies for a tiny group of the richest
farm businesses, or, as is too often the case, millionaires with farm
interests.
Huge payouts to large farms will never help rural
communities because large farms contribute little to local economies.
Big farms buy the mammoth machines needed to work vast acreages - a
fully equipped grain combine can run over a quarter of a million
dollars - far away from the local community.
They sell goods wherever the market offers advantages.
Big farms mine agriculture only to spend the profits elsewhere. They
have no loyalty, no ties, and no allegiance to towns of 500 or 1,500
people, such as mine. An emphasis on economic development would have
helped rural communities grow jobs, as well as crops. And lower limits
on direct payments to the largest farms could have freed capital for
rural rejuvenation.
The recent farm bill is notable mostly for
what it didn't do. It did not end the unfair advantage granted to large
farms over small. It did not rescue livestock producers from a downward
spiral of corporate control and drought. It did not silence the
lobbyists of multinational grain buyers. It did not offer meaningful
limits on farm payments. It did not answer the call from rural
communities for real economic development. It did not establish
reliable disaster assistance for all domestic growers of food.
In July 2007, as rural Americans watched and waited, the House had the
opportunity to create an epic farm bill of New Deal proportions. The
Senate takes up its debate on the farm bill soon. We are still waiting.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed