Some farm program change justified

Gazette Editorial Board

--

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack confirmed Monday what many in the agriculture sector expect: Direct payments to crop farmers are not likely to survive in the 2012 farm bill.

We think that change is justified - depending on what happens with other farm programs. With record grain prices, direct payments aren't necessary. This is money farmers get regardless of their crop yields or the market price.

Direct payments hit $4.9 billion last year, as part of total subsidies that have ranged from $14 billion to nearly $25 billion annually over the last decade. Most subsidies go to corn, wheat, soybean and cotton farmers - producers of fruits and vegetables, as well as livestock (other than dairy), are mostly left out.

Direct payments were implemented a few years after the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act, which let farmers make all their planting decisions while doing away with government price supports and management rules. Commodity prices fell over the next couple of years, however, and Congress decided it had to renew some support, including the direct payments.

Eliminating the direct payments is proposed toward cutting farm spending by $23 billion over the next decade. Certainly, agriculture needs to take its share of budget cuts as Congress wrestles with getting spending in balance with revenue and reversing the nation's unacceptable and dangerous debt spiral.

However, Congress should not yank the entire safety net for farmers. Maintaining an affordable crop insurance program is fair protection for farmers who efficiently feed the nation, greatly impact U.S. exports and incur major risks to do so. Those risks are primarily severe weather and market prices relative to their costs.

Climate change is producing more frequent, severe weather patterns here and around the globe. Texas alone sustained a record $5.2 billion in crop and livestock damage over the past year because of drought and heat. Yet such losses and a hungry world population about to breech 7 billion will undoubtedly keep demand, and thus commodity prices, high for the foreseeable future. Crop insurance, not direct payments, is a prudent investment to protect for disasters.

We also agree with Vilsack that Congress continue support of conservation programs. Protecting our invaluable cropland from erosion and misuse is becoming even more important as extreme weather incidents increase.

Farmers should do the right thing, but an assist from USDA programs is a justified assist that serves the country's interests.

n Comments: thegazette.com/

category/opinion/editorial or

editorial@sourcemedia.net