Overall, I believe the confidence and safety net that the new Farm Bill brings to our nation’s farmers outweigh the excessive greed and spending within the bill.
Eric Stubben
[follow id =”ericstubben”]
Growing more than 400 different crops across the state, California is the most agriculturally diverse state in the nation. The agriculture sector in California generates roughly $37.5 billion per year, more than any other state. If all of California’s agricultural land was gathered into one area, it would be almost three times the size of New York state.
Needless to say, California agriculture is a big deal.
That’s why when the federal Farm Bill was signed into effect last week, it was also a big deal. At first glance, the law looks like a sweeping reform from previous ones, but the differences really aren’t that stark. Though the Congressional compromise both thoroughly shocked and pleased me, the bill’s flaws are glaring.
The main reform of this year’s Farm Bill is the switch from direct subsidies to more “need-based” or “safety net” subsidies for popular commodities. Prior to this year, qualifying farms across the country were paid a total of $5 billion each year in pre-determined subsidies, whether they grew their crops or not. Often demonized by Democrats as handouts to corporate farms, this direct payment system was completely scrapped from this year’s version of the Farm Bill. Instead, two “safety net” systems were created and named to become the headline of the new bill.
Collectively, the two safety net systems — the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) — are typically termed “crop insurance.” While farmers will decide which system they want to use, both have the same basic principle. With minor differences, the essence of each program is to pay out subsidies to farmers when crop prices fall to a predetermined amount under market value. Cotton farmers are separate from these programs, but are given their own (strikingly similar) Stacked Income Protection Plan.
Similarly, ranchers are given new protection under the new Farm Bill. After the expiration of a previous Farm Bill in 2011, ranchers were hung out to dry until now. Following almost three years of droughts, fires, floods and freezes, two new livestock programs designate $7 billion toward protecting ranchers from losses during severe natural events.
On the SNAP (formerly known as food stamps) side of the Farm Bill, Congressional Republicans found some ground. Though their original plan included $40 billion in cuts, they negotiated Democrats to a solid $8 billion in cuts, in which many Republicans believe will help close loopholes within the food assistance program.
While I’m excited for aggies to receive five years of guaranteed government support under the new Farm Bill, the 949-page bill doesn’t come without hazards.
In his recent floor speech, Senator John McCain highlighted some of the earmarks and irresponsible spending tagged onto the Farm Bill. The bill allocates $100 million to research within America’s maple syrup industry and $12 million to research and promotion of American wool. Also, the bill wastes $5 million on a study to evaluate the impact of allowing schools to offer dried fruits and vegetables to students. Perhaps the worst waste of all comes in the form of $15 million allocated for the creation of a Catfish Office within the Department of Agriculture. Now, I love fishing and I love eating catfish, but these millions will be going toward federal employees, specially hired to perform visual inspections of catfish. That’s just ludicrous.
While the revised Farm Bill safety net includes a relatively high rate of return during poor crop years, the bill fails to make the safeguards easier to access. After a significant event, farmers and ranchers still have to jump through hoops to get to their safety net. The new bill does not address the hours upon hours of paperwork or inspections needed to access the safeguards.
The new Farm Bill’s change from guaranteed direct payments to insurance-based safety net systems also separates the common taxpayer further from supporting agriculture. As President Barack Obama said when he signed the bill, “The Farm Bill saves tax payers’ hard-earned dollars by making sure we only support farmers when disaster strikes or prices drop; it’s not just automatic.” This mindset is exactly what I warned against in my previous agriculture article. Because public perception of agriculture already centers on corporate farms, environmental issues and health standards, a system that only backs up farmers in times of difficulty will not take any action to change that.
Overall, I believe the confidence and safety net that the new Farm Bill brings to our nation’s farmers outweigh the excessive greed and spending within the bill. While it’s disappointing to see unnecessarily long bills packed with earmarks, it’s much more important that our nation keeps our agricultural sector on track.
Last year, United States farmers exported $140.9 billion worth of agricultural exports. We are, by far, the top producer of agricultural products in the world. In that way, the Farm Bill is much more than some run-of-the-mill law passed by Congress. It’s a bill that not only affects American farmers, but nutrition and food consumption around the world.