|
 |
|
11-7-07
Contact: Reginald S. Hall, (803) 936-4409
FARM BILL - Editorial
to The State Newspaper
David Winkles, SC Farm Bureau President
I am writing in response to the Nov. 7 editorial to clarify
several points about the farm bill. The editorial left out a
justification in favor of government subsidies: to ensure a
safe and healthy supply of products that would not otherwise
be available. We know what it feels like to depend on
imports of foreign oil. The farm bill ensures we can largely
depend on Americans to feed Americans. It also ensures safe,
healthy, and environmentally friendly methods are used to
produce our nation’s food, fiber, and alternative fuels.
The editorial also likens farming to traditional
manufacturing businesses. While it is true that farmers are
sound business people, one thing is extremely different
between traditional manufacturing and agriculture. Farmers
must deal with the uncertainties of world agricultural
trade, prices, and weather. The source of our food and fiber
would be highly vulnerable without a farm bill to provide a
safety net.
American farmers cannot predict the affects of droughts or
floods, plant diseases or predatory wildlife. The farm bill
helps even out that uncertainty to help keep farmers in
business from year to year.
The editorial leads one to believe that most of the
subsidies are going into the pockets of non-farmers.
Individuals and families own more than 98 percent of US
farms and produce about 86 percent of US food and fiber.
Most farm payments go to qualified family farmers who need
the safety net to overcome risks unique to agriculture.
Furthermore, there are at least 33 different kinds of
compliance checks to discover improper farm payments that
help hold farm payment cheaters accountable. The government
uses a number of auditing techniques like aerial
photography, on-site inspections, and collateral appraisals
to audit payment recipients. Farmers who knowingly break the
rules should be penalized to the fullest extent of the law.
The editorial is right in that previous farm bills have not
included assistance for fruit and vegetable farmers. I am
pleased with the House version of the bill that does. In
fact, the vast majority of the funding in that version of
the bill goes to nutrition programs and all of the spending
increases are allotted to nutrition, conservation, fruits
and vegetables, research, and energy. The House version of
the bill benefits ALL Americans.
There is a need for a better balance of support programs
between all types of crops and farmers should be encouraged
to plant for the market and not for the benefit of
government programs.
We are in agreement that the farm bill does need to make
sure our country has the domestically produced food, fiber,
and alternative fuel it needs at prices Americans can
afford. We need a farm bill that is meant to support ag
production on a per unit basis to offset the impacts of
closed markets overseas, as well as variability in weather
and domestic markets, of which farmers have not control.
Farm policy is NOT meant to be a social program.
I would invite the non-farming public to view our farm
program’s safety net for family farmers like health
insurance; you don’t drop it just because you’re healthy.
It’s there in case you need it. The farm program must work
the same way.
The US government farm program insures the continued
production of a safe, healthy, abundant, and affordable food
supply. It totals only about 3 percent of the total national
budget, that’s a pretty good deal for ALL Americans.
While you encourage your readers to call their Senators to
oppose the Farm Bill, I would encourage just the opposite –
if you value a stable, safe, environmentally sound food
supply.
#
# #
RSH
024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Legal
Disclaimer Privacy
Notice
|
|
|
