For the full article, click on the headline above.
Wednesday the House and Senate voted to override President Bush's second farm bill veto, this time including all 15 titles of the comprehensive legislation. In May the trade title was mistakenly left out of the version sent to the President requiring both chambers to revote on a new version in its entirety. The action finally closes one of the longest, drawn out writings of farm policy.
Farm Futures did an online poll the first time Congress sent the President the bill and the overall response was that Congress should start over on a new law, even though the current legislations is months behind schedule. Just one day after being posted 1,250 users responded. Although it's not scientific, it does shed light on the truth that this farm bill misses the mark on what farmers want from the government.
A total of 84% of those responding to the poll agreed with the statement that "The bill is bad for the future of agriculture. Congress needs to start over."
Just one in 10 respondents voiced support for the proposal. Some 9% agreed "They've done a great job of crafting a bill that supports U.S. agriculture," while 1% said "Congress could have done better, but it's a good bill."
Other answers included "Their efforts lacked vision and short-changed the future of agriculture" (2%) and "This bill does a lot to help urban food programs, but does little to support production agriculture" (4%).
Goodies abound
The bill extends the status quo despite rising commodity prices and added on a few goodies besides.
The 5-year, $285 billion farm bill, ironically not including "farm" in its official title of the Food, Conservation & Energy Act, increased overall spending $20 billion over the projected cost if the 2002 Farm Bill were extended. Because of the increased spending, the Senate and House Agriculture Committees called on the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Budget Committee and the Senate Finance Committee to come up with extra funds. In the end, nearly $10 billion of the increase spending was found by budget gimmicks, sun-setting popular programs that will never really be terminated and new tax provisions.
Robert Thompson, University of Illinois ag policy expert, said it was clear in June 2007 that Congress wasn't serious about adopting reform in the farm bill. House leadership went to its freshman members and gave them anything they would need to get reelected this fall, Thompson said.
Previously it seemed a given heading into tight budget scenarios that ag organizations would need to pair back spending requests and be forced to work together. Instead, everyone got what they wanted plus some and few were left out with nothing.
The final bill proved that agriculture lobbying groups are masters at putting together coalitions that can get enough votes in both the House and Senate to have veto proof margins, Thompson. "It shows that ag organizations still have significant clout on the Hill."
The Farm Futures poll may show that commodity groups are out of step with their members.
In a statement after final passage, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin said the President's veto could not stand in the way of the farm bill becoming law. "Not only did this bill pass both chambers with an overwhelming majority, but with the override votes, we held our majorities. This proves we have a good, strong, bipartisan farm bill," he said.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., Senate Agriculture Committee ranking Republican, said, "While it is not a perfect bill, overall this is a very good piece of legislation."
And so that's what you get to work with -- a farm bill that is not perfect.
Tell me what you think. Are you disappointed with the new farm bill law of the land?
Policy is one of the most important issues facing farmers today, but often the most difficult to digest. Jacqui Fatka has a passion to decode the often difficult world of agricultural policy into terms understandable for today's ag players.
Fatka joined the Farm Progress team as E-Content Editor in August 2003 after graduating from Iowa State University. Prior to full-time employment with Farm Progress, she interned at Wallaces Farmer magazine, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley's press office and the Iowa Pork Producers Association and freelanced for National Hog Farmer. She also worked as a public relations consultant with Iowa Industries for the Future, an effort to bring together major players in the biorenewables industry.
Currently Fatka is a staff editor at a sister publication, Feedstuffs. For Farm Futures she regularly tells the story of ongoing agricultural policy changes. Her byline can also be found on management profiles.
Fatka grew up on a grain and livestock farm near Atlantic, Iowa. She currently lives in central Ohio with her husband Eric.
Powered by iNet Solutions Group ©2011 All Rights Reserved.