There's Manure on this Farm Bill

Democrat Tom Harkin Recently made the following statement regarding the 2008 Farm Bill:

“Farmers in Iowa and around the country are beginning to plant for the season. Here in Washington, Congress is fulfilling its promise to enact a farm bill that’s good for all America – farming families and rural communities, nutrition assistance for low-income Americans, fresh fruits and vegetables for school children, more sources of renewable energy and conservation of our natural resources and a disaster program.

“Like any compromise bill resulting from hard bargaining among regional and other interests, this farm bill is far from perfect. But no piece of legislation is. It includes significant reforms, as well as these major advances. It deserves the President’s signature.

“Inexplicably, the White House seems intent on destroying the harvest just as the seeds are being planted."

Pay particular interest to the second paragraph... the one in which Harkin lets us all know that included in this important piece of "compromise" legislation is a handful of givaways to "regional and other interests."

The entire committee passed version of the bill can be found here, if you're interested. But I'm going to talk about a few items in the bill which concern me.

Most agregious, in my mind, is a $126-million tax break for racehorse owners. That's no joke. Food prices are rising every day, fueled (literally) by continued subsidies for the production of ethenol from corn (known to most of the rest of the world as a food source) and the ever-rising cost of oil (which leads to higher transport costs), yet our congress thinks we need to give a tax break to millionaire playboys and girls who own racehorses.

But, that's not the end of the problems. According to TIME, "the top 10% of subsidized farmers collect nearly three-quarters of the subsidies, for an average of almost $35,000 per year. The bottom 80% average just $700. That's worth repeating: most farmers, especially the small farmers whose steadfast family values and precarious family finances are invoked to justify the programs, get little or nothing."

It goes on. The bill does nothing to fix the "commodity farm program." The policies in place under current rules are hurting local growers of fruits and vegetables AND consumers. But, that seems to be the goal, as the larger national-scale producers don't want the competition that comes from growers at a local-scale at a reduced price. Solution? -- Slap on heavy penalties to growers of fruit and vegatables who are using land previously used for the favored crops of the farm subsidies (corn, soybeans, rice, wheat and cotton). A farmer could decide to grow nothing at all on the land and be better off than if he or she decided to grow a fruit or vegetable.

These kinds of policies do nothing to actually HELP small farmers or consumers. Farmers should be allowed to grow whatever is in their best interest to grow.

The bill also calls for a reduction in the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education Program for overseas schoolchildren. This coincides with the current rise in food prices worldwide. This is also not acceptable.

But, in the end, as Harkin says, "compromise" is the rule of the day -- this IS congress, after all. The bill does provide for several important programs for some of America's neediest families by way of increasing the food stamp program and a sizable boost in dietary and nutrition programs.

Having grown up on one, I know that farms contain a fair share of manure. But, as bad as it smells it DOES make the soil more fertile. Are these "compromises" simply a necessity to move important gains forward, or can we do a better job of targetting the policies which really need changed without giving money away for racehorse owners?

I think you know where I stand. How about you?