The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller

Election unlikely to change US farm subsidies

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Republicans might take control of Congress as they ride a wave of voter anger over deficit spending and big government, but experts who follow agriculture say they don’t expect deep cuts in subsidies to farmers who grow crops such as corn and soybeans.

Those payments are long-entrenched policy that have had the support of a wide range of lawmakers, from liberal to conservative. Regardless of the election results, that likely won’t change much, politicians and other said.

Still, federal farm programs could be examined closely given the size of the deficit and the chance that the election could change the makeup of the agriculture committees and their leadership.

“It’s going to be a bit of a roller coaster on election night from an agriculture perspective,” said Tara Smith, a director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation.

But Rep. Collin Peterson, a Minnesota Democrat who chairs the House Agriculture Committee, said he doubts anyone on the panel would push to cut overall spending in the next Farm Bill. It will be a five-year package that includes crop subsidies — primarily for corn, soybeans, cotton, wheat, peanuts and rice — and a range of other programs. The bulk of Farm Bill money goes to nutrition programs such as food stamps.

If Republicans take control of the House, Rep. Frank Lucas of Oklahoma could take over as chairman of the Agriculture Committee. Lucas declined an interview request, but Peterson said a change wouldn’t make a big difference, except that Peterson is eager to start writing the 2012 Farm Bill next year while Lucas wants to wait.

“We’re not going to have a bill unless Frank Lucas and I agree on it,” Peterson said. “Whether he’s chairman or I’m chairman, that’s not going to change.”

Likely to come under fire, however, are “direct payments,” a $5 billion a year subsidy that pays landowners a set per-acre amount regardless of what they’re currently growing or whether prices are high or low. Prices for corn and other crops have soared lately.

The Iowa Farm Bureau made waves last month by calling for an end to direct payments, but it also proposed shifting the money to other programs that shield farmers from losses due to poor prices, bad weather or diseases.

Direct payments are popular with Southern farmers, and Smith predicted some state Farm Bureaus will “wholeheartedly oppose” Iowa’s proposal when the national group holds its annual meeting in January.

Although Peterson said Agriculture Committee members wouldn’t support cuts in overall Farm Bill spending, he acknowledged critics of subsidies could attack the legislation when it comes before the full House and Senate.

Donald Carr, a spokesman for the Environmental Working Group, said he’s waiting to see whether the election will affect the debate.

“Generally, Republicans have campaigned on less spending and smaller government. So it will be interesting to see if they gain control how they treat large farm operations and wealthy landowners who receive the bulk of lavish farm subsidies and demand more and more every year,” said Carr, whose group tracks subsidies.

Don Koehler, executive director of the Georgia Peanut Commission, said local interests usually count for more than ideology.

“Some of the Georgia folks talk like tea party candidates. … But if you’re from a district that has peanuts you won’t stay in Congress long if you start voting against farm bills or create problems for peanuts,” Koehler said.

If Republicans take control of the House, House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio likely would become speaker. Although Boehner voted against the 2008 Farm Bill, Peterson said he doesn’t expect him “to try to take apart farm programs” unless a majority of his caucus demands it.

Peterson said Boehner probably would put Republicans on the Agriculture Committee who would benefit politically, which means supporters of farm programs, not opponents.

“He’s a practical guy. He’s not going to put ideologues on there who are going to cause trouble,” Peterson said.

A chairmanship change also could come in the Senate Agriculture Committee, where its leader, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, has been trailing in most polls.

If the GOP takes the Senate, the chairmanship likely would pass to Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., who opposed the Obama administration’s attempt to cut the farm budget this year. Chambliss did not respond to an interview request.

Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., a House Agriculture Committee member, said he worries about cuts, but he noted that farm policy historically has been “far more of a regional than a partisan issue.” Given that, he doesn’t expect big changes.

Nor does Bryon Kittleson, who grows 500 acres of corn and soybeans west of Fairmont in southern Minnesota. He pointed out that since prices are high, some subsidy programs aren’t paying out anyway. And he argued that subsidies are a key tool for keeping U.S. food prices relatively low.

“If agriculture doesn’t thrive then the nation doesn’t thrive,” Kittleson said. “They will always find a way to have a cheap-food policy. If they cut subsidies and they see a reaction and it affects things adversely, they’ll bring it back.”

  • Whit

    Any change requires adjustment. When Studebaker started making cars instead of wagons and buggies there was no need for buggy whips and whip holders but it took some time for the labor to accept that change. James chapter five reproves the rich of his day for holding back wages from those who worked their fields. Today these rich are our government with its taxing away all our capital. They treat this as though is is theirs by right. The government produces no capital but takes it from us “greedy” producers. The ten commandments teaches, thou shalt not covet and goes on to explain. The government is just as avaricious and as any accusation they can lay on any capitalist. None of these subsidies and welfare entitlements are for our benefit but for the government’s benefit by keeping us beholden to our government officials. All these entitlements have built in ratchets that insures their growth. The farmers never demanded government interference with subsidies and crop control. This is all government issue and it has eroded the farm community to the point we are facing a collapse of agriculture and the resulting famine. We are much closer than you think because we are drawing on world production through our improved transportation but we are about to lose our dairies and that includes the milk cows bred for that purpose.
    There is a lot more that needs to be addressed but the majority are completely uninformed about our real issues and don’t know how close we are to the precipice.

    My grand father was in Kansas probably some time in the 1880s going to a house that the team he was driving had been there but Pa had not. It was a cold, dark night and suddenly the team stopped and would go no further. Pa got off the wagon and stumbled over the steps to the house he was looking for. The next morning as he left he saw his wagon tracks in the snow almost at the edge of a deep ravine. That is how we are traveling right now in the dark.

  • baal

    Remember this–if you try to cut subsidies like this, the special interests will bring out the kids in wheelchairs and say that you want to starve them to death. On top of that they will wheel out John Cougar Melencamp, Bruce Springsteen, and a bunch of country artists to say that you hate small town america.

    This stuff might actually be a more highly electrified third rail that social security!

  • R Sweeney

    If these elections don’t stop subsidies, then the next ones will.

    We can’t afford a government which decides and pays winners and losers.

    • chuck in st paul

      Too true RS. In addition all these subsidies generally work at cross purposes as well. People in Oklahoma plant crops that are not economically viable because with the subsidy suddenly they can make a profit. Result – non production of a crop they ‘should’ plant and over production of the one they do.

      Then there’s the infamous corn ethanol subsidy. We all know how well that went. Just ask some Mexicans about the cost of tortillas if you want an ear full. My all time favorite though is the Milk Pricing Board. They set the prices of milk on how far the cow is from Madison, Wisconsin. No lie.

      Vote in NO!-vember folks. We need to put a stop to all this nonsense.

      • Whit

        Good thinking. If we push the right pencil in the right direction the cost of subsidies would be astounding. There is no way that they can work. It is against natural law which is as pervasive as the law of gravity. It would take a book to touch on all the details

        By the way, several years ago the price of soy beans shot up over ten dollars a bushel and Production Credit forced the bean farmers to buy new machinery before they would finance a crop. By taxation and rules the government made sure the farmer had to depend on production credit to get operating capital. This was no accident or unintended consequence. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were involved in those shenanigans. What many don’t known is that the government has a strangle hold of farm finance. As it turned out, when the beans were almost ready to harvest the bottom dropped out from under the price to below production cost and bankrupted practically every bean farmer in this area. Such a drastic price adjustment had to be foreseeable but someone was hiding the facts. Had we been depending on the free market this would not have happened.

        I can cite incident after incident that shows the farm program is unconstitutional and a fraud from A to Z. Not just the farmer pays, we all pay. To get rid of the program is mandatory. We can use compassion and wisdom or we can let nature do it her way but it will be done.

  • plarenuts

    Long entrenched is exactly the problem!

  • dahni

    What I understand now about Farm subsidies is that it is just another way the Fed.govt. acts to control another aspect of American Life. I’m in favor of a more free enterprize throughout our businesses. Who benefits from the farm subsidies? What would likely happen if the subsidies were eliminated? Is it true that the very large agricultural entities benefit tremendously from farm subsidies while small farmers are seriously hurt in the process?

    • Whit

      Dahni we were chopping cotton when Franklin Delano Roosevelt had the county agent come out and measure the couple of acres we had planted to cotton and demand that we plow under a measured portion. They use a chain to do the measuring. It was a special chain designed for that purpose. Prosperity through scarcity. You see how is works in Cuba.

      None of us had any money to speak of but we did raise enough food to furnish a satisfactory diet. This was the beginning of becoming outlaws by default. The fines were devastating and every one was isolated so we had no such thing as a tea party. This was pure Socialism at work saying that we had too much production for our own good. A very hypocritical argument. This is based of the fairness doctrine. Its not fair for you to have more than me sort of thing.

      It was said in our area that the Lord would not let this go without consequence and they were right. Today we have Obama but the program began with Roosevelt. Much, much more could be said.

  • logic

    The massive overproduction of corn and soybeans that is fed to the animals people eat and pumped into nearly every processed food you can think of, is at the core of America’s obesity problem. Of course the root cause is people not being aware and taking care of themselves properly, but the government’s farm subsidies have manipulated the market in yet another destructive way.

  • ernielane

    More importantly, _any_ cuts will set a precedent. End “direct payments” now, all (or most) farm subsidies down the road.