An Urban's Rural View

By most accounts the term "log rolling" -- legislators trading votes for each other's pet programs -- traces back to the frontier custom of neighbors helping each other build log cabins. "I'll roll your logs, you roll mine."

An alternate account says the term derives from the sport of log rolling, in which contestants stand on logs and try to push each other into the water but in the process sometimes end up cooperating, holding each other up.

The deal between farm groups and conservation groups on crop insurance, payment limitations and conservation compliance resembles the water sport. Each side not only gained something. Each side gave something.

Conservation groups wanted crop insurance conditioned on conservation compliance; farm groups rejected that. Farm groups opposed cuts in crop-insurance premium assistance to farmers with more than $750,000 in adjusted gross income; some conservation groups favored it.

Now 32 farm and conservation groups have joined in sending a letter to Senate Agriculture Committee leaders backing conservation compliance, though a weaker version of it than passed the Senate last year, and opposing payment limitations. They called it a "carefully crafted compromise" and vowed not to support any deviations from it.

It will be interesting to watch the reaction to this news. Here, for what they're worth, are five quick thoughts on the matter.

1. It's nice some folks in the political process still know how to compromise.

2. At first glance the conservation groups seem to have given more. But having the farm groups as allies on conservation compliance when the House takes up the issue may be more than adequate compensation.

3. Small farmers will be tempted to say they lose when bigger farmers get the same percentage of premium assistance. As if to anticipate that objection, the compromise letter says if payments are limited fewer acres will be insured and a smaller insurance pool will mean higher rates for everyone. Whether that's a good answer depends. How many fewer acres? How much higher rates? Without evidence it's hard to know.

4. Some farmers see conservation compliance as an infringement on their property rights. But they can drain their wetlands if they wish. Just turn down the subsidy. Whenever the government doles out taxpayer money, it sets conditions. We can argue the wisdom of any proposed condition -- no buying sodas with food stamps, no plowing virgin ground for crop-insurance recipients. But it's hard to argue conditions on a handout diminish "rights."

5. If compromise can be reached on these issues, why not on the dairy program and food stamps?

(CZ)

© Copyright 2013 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.