“First of all, ACGA wants to make it perfectly clear that we do not oppose Revenue Based Counter-Cyclical initiatives just because we are the alternative to the corn organization that has advanced the measure, but because we see considerable problems with the proposals,” explained Bolin. “ACGA strongly opposes the Revenue Based Counter-Cyclical proposals pending in Congress and we also oppose any further privatization of the farm safety net.”

The letter, delivered to chairman Harkin on Sept. 5, detailed ACGA’s concerns with the revenue based approach and suggested better alternatives for the 2007 farm bill.

“Our most serious concern is that the Revenue Based programs is another diversion to the real intent of U.S. farm policy and again fails to address the root problems in production agriculture, those being an inherent inability to adequately price production and manage the supply of our major crops,” the letter read.

“To address these root problems, we again recommend a floor price mechanism such as the nonrecourse loan and tools such as the Farmer Owned Reserve (FOR) to address over and under production cycles. Given the current strong demand for commodities, mostly due to biofuel uses and weather related production problems we must be aware that past programs helped successfully manage these supplies, to the benefit of both farmers and consumers and will be most crucial to the success of our new renewable energy production frontier in agriculture.”

The letter also addressed the issue of the privatization of farm policy, stating “ACGA also has grave concerns with the probability that the Revenue Based Counter-Cyclical program will also be privatized. It appears, to many, that there may be a bait-and-switch scheme in the works to place the entire farmer safetynet into the hands of the private insurance companies. We see this as no better than the privatization of our defense requirements with the likes of the Halliburtons of the corporate world. Farmers will continue to be underserved, taxpayers will pay huge sums of money and the winners will be the fat-cat executives of the private insurance companies. Just as in war, the farm safety net is not well served by privatization.”

ACGA also cited the issue of the complexity of farm programs by writing, “The complexity of offering another option to producers in lieu of the CCP is another concern we have with the proposal.

Much the same as farmers having to wade through the complicated decisions related to the past farm bill and crop bases, this proposal would place a significant burden on FSA staff and farmers as they attempt to sign up for the farm program.”

One final concern ACGA included in the correspondence said, “With some of the proposals being considered, such as the one offered by Senators Durbin and Brown as well as the Kind-Flake proposal in the House, is these are thinly veiled attempts to move our farm program benefits into the WTO Green Box as a prelude to restarting the Doha trade Round. That is why they have the backing of the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and former Secretary of Agriculture Clayton Yuetter. We wish to remind the Chairman that we should be writing a farm bill in Washington and not a trade bill in Geneva. This legislation also proposes to do away with marketing assistance loans, while not perfect in our opinion, we feel would be a very bad mistake given the need to provide adequate financing to producers when there may be a lending crisis on the horizon due to economic factors completely out of producers hands.”

The full test of the ACGA letter to Chairman Harkin may be found at http://ruralwire.com/additionalinfo/ACGA_09_05_07.pdf The American Corn Growers Association represents 14,000 members in 35 states. If you believe in the work of ACGA and want to be a part of the organization, please join and/or find additional details at http://www.acga.org/

Keith Bolin, president

American Corn Growers Association