An Urban's Rural View

Just say no to the farm bill. One week into a three-week cross-country trek, I have heard that no-more-farm-bills blast twice.

Farmers are no longer poor, the argument begins. The government's broke. We don't subsidize other businesses. Nobody pays me not to go to work. On and on the rant goes.

It would be easy to dismiss those making this case as unworthy of attention. A survey of two, after all, has about as much scientific validity as bloodletting or alchemy. Surely, you'd think, no Congressman will buy this collection of half-truths, however passionately a handful of constituents might be selling it.

I don't dismiss them. For one thing, their diversity is striking. One was a liberal Democrat in Washington, D.C., a generally well-informed political type, a foodie and a native of a heavily agricultural state. The other was a conservative Republican in Omaha, a thoughtful professional who does a lot of business with farmers. When the left and right start to unite on a position, my curiosity is piqued.

Is the opposition to farm subsidies strengthening? Critics were out in force during the debate over the 2008 farm bill, but I don't recall a critique as extreme as Daniel Sumner's April 25 polemic in the Atlantic (http://tiny.cc/…). The headline on the piece summed its message up:

"'The World's Most Outdated Law': Why the Next Farm Bill Should Be the Last/The Department of Agriculture Administration Building sits next to the Smithsonian. It ought to be a museum, too."

If nothing else the new anti-farm-bill ferocity is a reminder that the agriculture lobby needs to sharpen its arguments. Ag's most important point -- food security -- is showing rust.

Would we really have less food if subsidies vanished and some farmers failed? Or would we just have more farm consolidation? Jones may no longer work the land but it won't necessarily lie fallow. It may even be farmed more productively. The evidence of the last six decades suggests that as the number of farmers shrinks agricultural output expands.

The critics miss the mark when they say other industries aren't subsidized. Many are. Collin Peterson, the ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee, says the government shells out as much for flood insurance as crop insurance. If we're cutting one, why not the other?

The danger in this rebuttal is that the critics will answer the rhetorical question "Yes." At least some of them are anti-government types who would gladly cut both types of government-supported insurance and end subsidies to other industries as well as agriculture.

Maybe that's the new element in the equation. The farm bill isn't just in the cross-hairs of urbanites who resent subsidizing farmers. They're joined by a growing group of folks who want to slash almost all government programs. If the House of Representatives takes up the farm bill next month, as expected, we may see how powerful this coalition has become.

(ES/)

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