In a less adorable appearance, Vilsack spoke on NPR's Morning Edition. He was quoted saying that almost anything farmers do affects us:
What they use in their farm equipment, what they plant, where they plant it, when they plant it, how they fertilize it, how they cultivate it, what they do once it's harvested, if they have livestock, what do they feed that livestock, there's also what happens underneath the ground.
I agree there! Vilsack goes on to defend subsidies as a way to ensure reasonably priced foods for both consumers and farmers and a stable food supply. He also adds that we might want to compensate farmers for reducing global warming ("I think it will be tied to the whole notion of offsets... Eventually the farmer gets benefited for doing what is right for the country as a whole and for the globe as a whole, which is to reduce the carbon footprint.") Yes! Yes! Yes! (OK, I swear, I'm not re-enacting that When Harry Met Sally scene, I promise.)
Vilsack agrees with me in theory that the safety net of subsidies needs to be there for those who need it but we also need to worry about the deficit at some point too. I'm less interested in reducing the deficit than in moving the subsidy money into conservation programs so that farmers are required to be good stewards of the land in order to gain access to their safety net. But I think Vilsack's statements hint that he would be for that too in some form or another. The big question is the specifics - he's got the right idea in general, but what does that mean specifically?
Daryll Ray responded to Obama's (and thereby Vilsack's) plan for cutting direct payments for those making over $500k in sales by saying, "$500,000 in sales does not (usually) a viable net income make" (PDF).
Ray says:
Our concerns were confirmed when word began to come out indicating that direct payments would be reduced for farm operators with over $500,000 in sales. Those numbers may seem large to someone earning $30,000 a year, but we have seen years where grain farmers with $500,000 in sales would have had a negative income if it hadn't been for farm program payments. Besides that, $500,000 in sales could often be achieved with fewer that 900 acres of corn OR fewer than 1700 acres of wheat, farm sizes that local farmers would definitely not consider "large."
He continues to say that he expects if a $500k sales limit gets put on subsidies, many large farms would split up into separate entities making less than $500k each - totally wiping out the savings Obama is hoping for by limiting subsidies. (Another problem he brings up? A change in subsidy policy would require re-opening the recently-passed bipartisan farm bill. And I doubt Obama will have much luck in Congress getting such a change past his own Democrats let alone Republicans.)
He also notes that asking farmers to rely on payments for environmental services and energy production will require upgrading our grid in rural areas to make that more possible, and that STILL won't make up for long periods of low commodity prices. Overall, Ray builds a convincing argument that Obama's plan to cut direct payments for those making over $500k is a naive suggestion by someone who doesn't understand agriculture, and it's not the solution to our problems.
One more caveat about subsidies - thus far we've been focusing on the direct payments and farms over $500k in sales. In a Des Moines Register op ed, where he defends Obama's budget, Vilsack also says Obama wants to cap subsidies at $250,000. In other words, no matter who you are, or how much you make, you can get up to $250,000 in subsidies and then you can't have any more money. I'm much more at ease with this than with the direct payment limit of $500k in sales.
Then there's the question of ethanol. Tom Laskawy reports on his blog that Vilsack is saying "Mr. President, tear down this blend wall" (well done, Laskawy!!! Very funny). The Blend Wall is a maximum amount of ethanol, set by the EPA, that can be mixed into gas at U.S. gas stations. Currently, that's 10%, and it creates a "sales ceiling" for ethanol. Vilsack wants to increase ethanol sales by raising that to 15%. Bad idea, Mr. Vilsack. Bad idea.
Then there's the Agricultural Outlook that Vilsack spoke about, as reported by Ezra Klein. Klein quotes Vilsack talking about the goals Obama gave him when he took the Ag Sec job:
He had three goals for this department in addition to all of the obvious goals. He wanted to make sure that America's children in particular had more nutritious food. He's very, very concerned about the health and welfare of America's children.
He wanted to make sure that we did everything we could at USDA to expand energy opportunities, the capacity of our land, our farms, and our ranches to produce alternative forms of energy and fuel. And he wanted to make sure that we worked hard at doing the research necessary to allow, over time, agriculture to transition away from its rather significant dependence today on fossil fuels.
Elsewhere in his speech, Vilsack really hits the nail on the head about why farming is so difficult:
...farming is, I think and believe in my heart, is the most difficult occupation, job, calling, of any in the country. You have no control over your input costs, you have very little control over what you get for that which you grow, and you have absolutely no control over the weather.
In the speech, Vilsack promised a major commitment to rural development (roads, rail lines, water treatment facilities) and renewable energy (ethanol of course, but solar and wind too). Vilsack also seems to buy into the notion that we need science to figure out how to feed all of the world's people. That's usually a line used when people are promoting GMOs, although Vilsack didn't mention them specifically. The truth is that there's no lack of food to feed a growing global population, just a really piss poor distribution system that results in a lot of people going hungry while others throw extra food away.
One last Vilsack alert: Vilsack said once and for all that downer cows may NOT enter the human food supply. That's great. But can they still become livestock feed? I fear so but hope not. |
