Advertisement
I wanted to ask Katy Ziegler a question that kept things simple.
“What is one thing you can say that would make average Americans understand the farm bill?” I asked.
Ziegler, vice president of governmental affairs for the National Farmers Union in Washington, D.C., replied: “Do you like to eat? What we’re trying to do is continue a tradition of providing Americans with a safe, abundant food supply.”
Ziegler, who grew up on a farm in western Minnesota, has headed the Farmers Union governmental operation for the past year.
Before that, she worked as the organization’s legislative director, and prior to that she was on the staff of Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., working on agricultural policy.
She was touring Wisconsin farms and holding information meetings for farmers and others, accompanied by Wisconsin Farmers Union President Sue Beitlich, who lives near Stoddard, Wis.
Both were trying to demystify the farm bill (officially labeled the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008).
The 1,100-page bill was controversial this year, although its supporters insist that it was a reasonable compromise that increases money for food programs for the poor and offers more opportunities for conservation. It also cuts back on the direct subsidies given to farmers for specific commodities.
On that last point, there were some who believed that it didn’t go far enough. Among those were Rep. Ron Kind, D-La Crosse.
When the bill passed the House, The New York Times said Kind was standing in the House chamber next to a poster that showed increases in commodity prices, including 126 percent for wheat, 57 percent for soybeans and 45 percent for corn.
“Where’s the beef?” Kind was quoted as saying.
But Beitlich said there is considerable reform in the bill — and that only 13 percent of the total bill (about $300 billion for the next five years and about twice that for the next 10 years) goes for commodities.
The vast majority — 66.1 percent — goes for nutrition programs for low-income people, including Food Stamps.
The bill is immensely complicated, which explains my eye-glazing-over problem.
It has 14 sections, called “titles,” which cover such areas as commodities, conservation, trade, rural development, livestock, forestry and other topics.
Beitlich was obviously uncomfortable answering questions about Kind’s opposition to a bill that she supported. She was careful not to criticize him but did say that Kind’s opposition to the bill because it failed to eliminate direct payments to farmers constituted “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”
She said there are two basic kinds of subsidies — direct subsidies, which go to farmers often without regard to prices or economic conditions, and “countercyclical” subsidies, which are given when times are bad and amount to a “safety net” for farmers.
“We wanted to eliminate direct subsidies,” she said. “But they did get reduced.”
Countercyclical subsidies, she said, were needed to keep farmers in business during tough times.
“Food production is unlike any other segment of the economy,” Ziegler said.
“If we don’t have farms, we don’t have food,” said Beitlich.
“Exactly,” Ziegler replied, “That’s the bumper sticker — No farmers, no food.”
That’s an explanation even I can understand.
Contact Opinion page editor Richard Mial at (608) 791-8232, or by e-mail at rmial@lacrossetribune.com.
