Farm Bill: Plow It Out, Boys!
Conrad Channels Butz
Another reason to worry about the new multi-billion dollar "permanent disaster program" Senators Conrad and Baucus have strong-armed into the farm bill--and there are plenty of reasons to worry already. From Time Magazine:
Disaster Relief: A new program to compensate farmers hit by drought or flooding could get $3.8 billion over four years. Farmers now get emergency aid for disasters like flood or drought on a case-by-case basis, but payments can take years. Sen. Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, says the new program would allow farmers to borrow more money more quickly, and plant "fence row to fence row" to "give us a market response to these high prices."
That strategy worked out so well for North Dakota and other farm states last time--in the early 1970s, when Earl Butz told rural America to plant fence row to fence row--that farmers plowed up the Mall in celebration. And if you think trying harder to grow crops in North Dakota with government money to help you do it is a good idea, get a load of this map.
The truth is, Democrats in Congress don't know what to do or say about the food price run up story that is picking up a political head of steam. They have nothing to offer in the farm bill context, save a modest increase in the food stamp program. They were, and are, majority owners of the ethanol boom, which has hitched our food system to our fuel system in some extremely worrisome ways. But most Democrats--with the exception of the reliably honest and courageous Dick Durbin--point fingers only at rising energy prices, not at their own decision to rush headlong into corn-based ethanol before asking (much less answering) the most rudimentary questions about how it might affect the stability of the food system or the environment.
But if the bad weather continues in the Corn Belt during planting (too wet) and extends into summer (too dry), we could see truly dramatic increases in food prices right before the election. Where do you think all the fingers will be pointing then?
Comments
Man, the American farmer just can't win with Mr Ken Cook. It's the American farmer's fault for accepting government support which (less than 12 months ago) kept farmers in other countries in the poor house because supply from American growers "flooded" the world market. Now it's the American farmer's fault for high commodity prices, which are "breaking" the American food consumer at home. It's the American farmer's fault for low prices and high prices, I'm not sure how he can ever be correct in the eyes of the EWG, Oxfam, and their ilk. Nevermind, that $5.00 corn was ok in the 60s & 70s. Now, $6.00 corn is going to break the American consumer because of ethanol. There is little doubt that a 20% rise in prices over a 40 year period, nevermind inflation, is downright ludicrous and our farmers at home should be executed on the courthouse square for price-gouging. Nevermind that nearly every input in corn production is energy based and has more than TRIPLED in the last 2 years.
Just keep on talking with your mouth full, Ken.
Posted by: Ron Lee | May 1, 2008 9:27 AM
I see lots of acres where they planted wheat right behind the cotton stripper. That wheat is the poorest and I guess that'll trigger more subsidy payments. I don't agree with putting in two crops in one year and drawing government checks for both.
Also, I've been watching a big bunch of steers in a grazed out winter wheat field. The steers have been there for months and are still there as of this morning. The steers are getting poorer by the day. It doesn't make sense to this cowboy. Winter wheat grazing plant stage plays out by the first week of March. I bet there will probably be a disaster check coming to that outfit. If those steers stay there much longer, I'm thinking about getting the law out there to take a look.
Posted by: donny allen | May 1, 2008 10:42 AM
to the first poster, ron lee. your argument is flawed. you keep referring to the "american farmer." ken cook is not attacking the true american farmer in this post. in fact, those are the people he is fighting for. he is arguing against the large corporate agri-businesses that are making record profits while receiving record subsidy handouts from the government. and he is fighting against the politicians that continue to let this happen. the true "american farmer" you keep alluding to is being continually squeezed out of the agricultural picture by these corporate farms. yes, rising oil prices are contributing to the rising food prices, but so is increased ethanol production. the % influence of each is hard to assess. the bottom line, though, is that the richest farm corporations should not be receiving large government handouts during times of record profits. that's just a no-brainer.
Posted by: aaron | May 1, 2008 8:18 PM