Inside D.C.

Farm policy proposals more politics than practical

If you’re running for president, or at this point running to be your party’s candidate for president, you should probably do your homework on the issues about which voter segments care, including as part of that research, talking with real, live constituents.  This is advice for both President Trump and the two dozen or so Democrats who covet the job.

Based on the public declarations of rural policy put out by some of the Democrats candidate wannabes roaming the fields of Iowa – the first state candidate popularity contest of the 2020 general election season – over the last couple of weeks, the ignorance of challenges facing production agriculture runs deep among our nation’s most ambitious politicians.

Those candidates who rolled out plans to “reinvigorate” rural America pushed most of the hot buttons identified by Washington, DC, progressives and others, but nearly all were more philosophical than real-world, and certainly most lacked any detail.  The consensus proposals include plans for broadband expansion, “reinvestment” in rural innovation/jobs creation, carbon-saving conservation – “paying farmers to be green” – along with “vigorous” antitrust enforcement and health care.  Most include billions in new federal spending, because rural America is treated as an “afterthought.”

However, the race to be innovative and proactive with rural voters – unabashed recognition of rural voters’ contribution to President Trump’s 2016 victory – has spawned some “bold” proposals. 

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, for instance, proposed a new visa category, resident legal status sufficient to entice immigrants to move to towns and small cities which have lost young working-age folks over the last decade.  Visa recipients could apply for green card status if they lived in a targeted town or city for at least three years.  He told Iowa State Fair attendees economically challenged communities “need not just a job growth strategy, but a population-growth strategy.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) proposed what one analyst called “1933 all over again,” calling for a return to parity protection for producers.  No Farm Bill program tweaks for her, Warren wants “a sweeping overhaul” of ag policy, returning to the days of high-interest rate non-recourse marketing loans.   Putting USDA back in the commodity price management business, formally abandoned by 1996’s “Freedom to Farm” Bill, will guarantee farmers don’t lose money, Warren said.   She’d pay for her proposal through new corporate taxes and a levy on individuals with a net worth over $50 million.  “Because a supply management program only pays for the amount of commodities it takes off the market, it would substantially reduce costs for taxpayers, who, in the current subsidy approach, can end up paying for every single bushel and bale that farmers grow,” she told Iowans.  She’d also jack the cost of the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) from $1 billion a year to $15 billion as an incentive to farmers to be greener.

Former Newark mayor Sen. Cory Booker (D, NJ) – named PETA’s “sexiest vegetarian” in 2013 – talked proudly of a draft bill he’s produced to tackle climate change by planting four billion trees by 2030 and 15 billion by 2050, practicing “sustainable agriculture,” and following “nature-based” food production. His bill authorizes billions for “climate-friendly” farm practices, including “rotational grazing and better soil management” to cut one-third of ag greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.  In an interview published on the vegan news site VegNews.com, Booker, who went vegan in 2014, confesses he doesn’t believe the planet’s climate can withstand “industrialized” animal agriculture. “The tragic reality is this planet simply can’t sustain billions of people consuming industrially produced animal agriculture because of environmental impact,” he said.

Senate Agriculture Committee member Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D, NY),  drew praise from former Iowa governor and Obama Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack for a “unique” plan to give rural communities the tools to fix their own problems, including a new $50-billion block grant program and public-private partnerships focused on health care, rebuilding water lines, housing, building roads, railroads, disaster recovery, entrepreneurship and job training.  Gillibrand’s plan would pay farmers to develop new practices to put carbon back into the ground.

But no matter how “innovative” some of the candidate proposals purported to be, it was former Senator and Vice President Joe Biden who demonstrated the safest campaign strategy.  He delivered a wide-ranging speech accusing the guy sitting in the White House of creating a trade war with China that’s going to get tougher on agriculture than most producers expect, driving more farmers into bankruptcy and economically pressuring industry across the country.

By the way, everybody loves biofuels and the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS).