Negotiations Begin For 2012 Farm Bill

[ness]

I like CRP. And that's all I've got to say about that.

[3wt]

Tim,

You nailed my opinion on it. If these are all valid ideas, why are we hiding them in pork that everybody's afraid to vote against??

I think you'ld have a wider support for a comprehensive conservation bill than the bohemoth that is the current farm bill. Seperate the good from the bad...maybe line item veto isn't a bad thing.

[Wayne SW/MO]

So how is it a disaster if each individual part of the Farm Bill is evaluated for it's contribution? How is there a connection between passing good legislation and passing the Farm Bill as a block?

I don't know Tim, are we talking about the value of farm subsidies or the questionable process of determining them?

As the debt skyrockets we realize that government over spending produces the same results as when we do as individuals. If we can't afford the vehicle we have we don't stop driving and walk to the doctor, grocery store or work, we down size.

It helps to put things in perspective. Whether a farmer is a true corporation, or incorporated the family farm, he's in it to make money. In order to do that he has to invest thousands planting or brood stock produce something that has yet to be valued. Not only is it yet to be valued, none of his products are guaranteed to make it to market. On top of that you want him to contribute to conservation projects, at his expense, that you think is necessary?

[Tim Smith]

I don't know Tim, are we talking about the value of farm subsidies or the questionable process of determining them?

As the debt skyrockets we realize that government over spending produces the same results as when we do as individuals. If we can't afford the vehicle we have we don't stop driving and walk to the doctor, grocery store or work, we down size.

I think both topics are worthwhile, Wayne. From a conservation perspective I think the primary value would be in determining how to keep the value of CRP (or CReP) and similar incentives(on their merits) while shedding the less desirable parts of the bill.

Clearly you're right that the overall size of the government has to decline. I guess my concern would be that the conservation end of the Farm Bill would have less support in congress because farmers make less money from it than direct subsidies and they won't reward their legislators for keeping CRP and dumping the goofy stuff. Maybe CRP has a chance because it's small compared to the other parts of the bill and if the value of the conservation efforts were better known and more widely supported it might fare well outside the farming districts?

On top of that you want him to contribute to conservation projects, at his expense, that you think is necessary?

I see you added this later, Wayne. It doesn't logically follow. CRP is designed to prevent farmers from bearing conservation costs. Of course I want to help farmers engage in conservation without taking a loss if possible.

In order to do that he has to invest thousands planting or brood stock produce something that has yet to be valued. Not only is it yet to be valued, none of his products are guaranteed to make it to market.

...and this part is a brutal reality of farming world-wide. Commodities come with risk, probably more than most businesses, but that is the nature of the market. The US farmer gets quite a bit of value for his effort and has a much higher standard of living compared to most farmers world-wide. If the real market were in play, that would probably not be true. Propping up prices might be good humanism (or Christianity or Socialism or whatever moral code you use), but it's bad capitalism. It would be nice to see a little less schizophrenia over market/moral issues like these. Everyone wants government largess for themselves, but it's just evil soviet-style socialism when anyone else gets it.

[Wayne SW/MO]

I see you added this later, Wayne. It doesn't logically follow. CRP is designed to prevent farmers from bearing conservation costs. Of course I want to help farmers engage in conservation without taking a loss if possible

Not a good choice of words on my part, but whats new, I shouldn't have said you, many would have been a better choice. CRP is another subside, is it not?

Beyond you I see references to corporate farms for instance, but a corporate farm is not necessarily a publicly traded company, but a family farm using the same tools that other small business people use to protect their assets and family.

It is hard for me to believe that the congress will take the time to construct a farm Bill that would accomplish what it needs to. If the bail out is ant indication they simply don't have either the skill or the desire, or both.

Of course any attempts to blame one party or the other is no more that the kettle calling the pot black.

[Tim Smith]

Of course any attempts to blame one party or the other is no more that the kettle calling the pot black.

Agreed.

Maybe the current budget crisis will force congress to get serious. Hopefully CRP won't go under the ax.

[Justin Spencer]

If you let the food supply become unstable, prices will reflect it and the damage to the population will start at the bottom.

Or we would go back to a time when everyone had a backyard garden (I bet most of your grandparents or great grandparents had one). Or you would buy at the farmers market or local food co-ops. Much like gasoline, it takes an increase in price for "good" change to happen, the foods that are the worst for you are the cheapest, white flour, corn products, white rice, etc. Let the price rise and not only do people buy local or grow things themselves, we get heathier, the cost of healthcare goes down and govt. programs like medicare and medicade take less tax money to keep going, there is peace in the middle east, and we all catch 30" trout, and have 40 pound stringers of bass.

Vote Spencer in 2012

[Wayne SW/MO]

Or we would go back to a time when everyone had a backyard garden (I bet most of your grandparents or great grandparents had one). Or you would buy at the farmers market or local food co-ops.

Actually they all had them and all but one were farmers. I also did a garden for many years and my son does now. Sounds good on the surface, but they were only supplements and the grains you classify as harmful are an important part of the pyramid.

If a farmer were to lose money one year on his wheat and be unable to plant the next year and you multiple that by thousands, you risk a real shortage of food. People won't be able to grow there own or buy enough local as you would hope, but are more likely to revolt. The experiment of driving people to the land to grow their own and free themselves from markets was tried in Cambodia by Pol Pot in the mid 70's. Check out the results of that fiasco.

The original idea of subsidies was to insure that farmers could make some profit in a year, hold on to their land and plant the next year. The conservation portion was designed to keep land available for production if needed and give owners reason to keep marginal land and pay the taxes on it.

What no stringers of 30" trout?

[Justin Spencer]

The original idea of farm subsidies was a good one that I believe it started during the great depression, I would assume to avoid high prices and shortages in a rough time in our history (and don't tell me right now is similar to the great depression as I watch people on welfare talking on their I-phones). Where's my subsidy today and other day's when the water is too high to rent canoes. The rain we just had will cost me $400 today, but I understand that is part of the risk of my business. The slow years are offset by the good years, and during the good years you put money aside assuming that next year could be hard. If I had the govt. sitting there promising me money even in a bad year, then I have no incentive to save for the lean years and I'd be taking you to the river in a limo. If this country is serious about getting debt under control everyone is going to have to sacrifice, each cut will hurt someone and cutting subsidies would initially be a shock to the farmers, but the smart ones would figure out how to make it work and yes the price of food would probably rise, but that is part of the sacrifice.

Never been compared to Pol Pot before might hurt my 2012 campaign!

[flytyer57]

The biggest problem with farm subsidies is that very little of that money makes to the mom & pop farmers. The vast majority of it goes to the corporate farms. And I'm not talking about those little co-op farms either. I'm talking about the mega acre farms run by the likes of Monsanto.

That is the biggest complaint that most people have with the farm bill. More pork for the already rich corporats.