By ANN HINCH
Assistant Editor WASHINGTON, D.C. — While many federal legislators seem happy with the House version of the farm bill, nearly as many others do not support this plan, as evidenced by the small majority by which it passed a July 27 vote.
The vote split mostly along party lines, with a few exceptions on both sides of the aisle because of a late rider the Democrats included to require foreign corporations doing business in the United States to pay American tax rates instead of cheaper offshore rates, also called “the Bermuda loophole.” Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky was one of only 19 Republicans to support the final bill.
“I wasn’t excited about that tax provision, and I would’ve preferred it not have been in there,” he said, “but it’s a good farm bill.” He said that President Bush has been pushing for the loophole to be closed, and added of the $1 million income cap for subsidies, “I do think it was good that they lowered the income levels.”
Whitfield is not a farmer, but many constituents are. “Agriculture is probably the most important part of my district, really, if you just talk about economic impact,” he explained, pointing out the bill was supported by many agricultural organizations.
“I think it meets the needs of our farmers and ranchers,” said Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), who also voted for the farm bill, adding he would like to do even more with funding conservation efforts.
The Kind proposal
He is not alone in this respect. One of the 14 Democrats who voted against the bill was Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin.
A few weeks ago, he and Republican Rep. Jeff Flake (Ariz.) introduced an amendment voted down by the House 309-117, which would have decreased subsidies based on crop prices and tied them more into conservation programs.
Kind said his proposal wasn’t to eliminate subsidies entirely, but to be more selective in allocating them.
“Let’s maintain a safety net for family farmers,” he said was his philosophy. “Let’s help farmers when they need it; let’s not, when they don’t.”
He grows corn and soybeans and raises cattle on a 200-acre farm in western Wisconsin, and said neighbors – who are also farmers – have expressed concern to him about what they believe are high subsidies. “I think there’s support out there” among even program crop farmers for his reduction proposal, Kind said, “but you would never know it, from the (House) Ag Committee or the powerful special-interest groups.”
He said he qualifies for crop price supports, but does not receive any. He said three-quarters of farmers applying for conservation funds are turned away because of lack of funds. “It’s a real simple concept, and it was embraced by a lot in the Bush administration for this farm bill,” he said, adding the House passing the bill was “an exercise in futility … because that’s never going to pass into law” if Bush’s threat to veto and the lack of a two-thirds override majority in the House continue to hold true.
‘Not ready yet’
While he thinks Kind had some good ideas and that Congress can always consider new ways to improve longstanding policies, Ellsworth said of the Kind-Flake proposal, “We’re just not ready for that yet. (Crop prices) aren’t stable; there’s no telling where they’re going to go,” and that a safety net is important because farmers are “the backbone of this country.”
He is excited about the proposed funding for biofuel efforts to provide long-term stability for growers. “If there was ever the new revolution in this country, I think that’s where it is – energy,” he said. “And Indiana is right in the middle of that.”
As for what opponents are calling a tax increase on foreign corporations to fund increases in the new farm bill, Ellsworth said he didn’t understand why more Republicans don’t support it, since Bush does. “If an American company is paying taxes (to do business here), why should a foreign company not?” he asked. “It’s closing a loophole.”
Kind said his amendment would have eliminated the need to secure the additional funding. It would have also lowered the no-subsidies cap for a farmer’s adjusted gross annual income from $2.5 million to $250,000, instead of the $1 million approved.
“If you’re making over $250,000 a year in adjusted gross, you shouldn’t be expecting subsidies,” he said, explaining by “adjusted gross” he means profit.
Ellsworth called this proposed tenfold drop “a pretty stark move” that wouldn’t even have affected many farmers in his region because they don’t make a $250,000 profit. “(The bill) wasn’t going to get through without some kind of reduction,” he agreed of lowering the cap from $2.5 million, however.
Senate change?
Kind isn’t surprised at lack of support in the Ag Committee. According to him, two-thirds of all subsidies go to only 30 Congressional districts heavily-represented on the committee. “You would imagine that committee is going to be a committee for the status quo,” he said.
He believes there is room for reform in the crop insurance industry. Only “a handful” of firms handle this, he said, and stay profitable by charging high rates.
This farm news was published in the Aug. 8, 2007 issue of Farm World, serving Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee. |
