The federal farm bill confuses left and right

The politics surrounding the U.S. farm bill this year has left many scratching their heads.

ALBUQUERQUE — Last Friday, members of a congressional conference committee announced that they had come to an agreement on the major terms of the much-overdue 2007 farm bill (summary here).

President Bush has threatened to veto what he called a “massive, bloated” farm bill that gives subsidies to “millionaire” farmers.

The farm bill, which many argue should more accurately be called the food bill, is generally considered pretty dull stuff, and the mainstream media usually feel free to ignore it (with the exception of the Des Moines Register and Farm Journal, of course.)

But all the recent wrasslin’ over the farm bill has had at least one curious result: It’s put left-leaning reform activists in the novel position of agreeing with President Bush. Both want Congress to do more to change the farm subsidy structure. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported on May4:
It is the rarest of moments: President Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are on a collision course over a giant farm bill, but it is Bush who is broadly aligned with liberal Bay Area activists pushing for reform, while the San Francisco Democrat is protecting billions of dollars in subsidies to the richest farmers.
Of course, one might guess that as Speaker of the House, Pelosi is simply trying to help out vulnerable freshman representatives of farm states, including nine on the House Committee on Agriculture, while Bush might be expected to try to help get those same freshmen kicked to the curb when their two-year terms are up. In New Mexico, some voters will be watching very closely how Reps. Pearce, Udall and Wilson vote on the farm bill later this week.

How does the farm bill affect New Mexico? The nearly $300 billion farm bill contains an increase of approximately $10 billion in nutrition programs. New Mexico is not a traditional farm state, but it is a poor state, and those nutrition programs have a big impact here. In particular, the farm bill includes more money for food stamps and food banks.

“New Mexico ranks second in the nation in food insecurity,” Sherry Hooper, board president of the NM Association of Food Banks, said Friday. “And we rank third in hunger, meaning we have thousands of New Mexicans who are suffering pain from lack of food.” Hooper said that while she was delighted that food banks might see an increase in funding, an increase for food stamps was also important. “Many of the families we serve also get food stamps, and they need to take advantage of all the available programs to make ends meet.”

Another part of the farm bill, the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program, gives schools money to buy fresh fruits and vegetables; last year, some participating New Mexico schools spent money on locally grown apples, watermelons, carrots and pears.

Marion Kalb is the Santa Fe-based program director of the Community Food Security Coalition, an organization that pushed hard for an increase in funding for the snack program.

“With the amount of money that food-service folks have to serve a meal it’s really hard to afford fresh fruits and vegetables,” she said Monday. “[Schools] have about a dollar to buy food for a lunch — and milk, a required component, ranges from 25 to 35 cents. So it’s hard to afford fresh fruit and vegetables.”

The program started out in 2002 as a pilot program of the farm bill, with $6 million to share between 100 schools in four states, including Zuni Pueblo. In 2007 it was funded at $9 million. In the compromise bill that came out of Congress last week, the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program was allocated $1 billion. Yes, billion.

Because participation in the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable snack program has been targeted to schools with a high percentage of students who qualify for free and reduced price lunch — and in New Mexico that’s more than 50 percent of students — the program may be expanded considerably here.

The new farm bill also includes $33 million (over 10 years) for the Farmers Market Promotion Program, roughly triple the current $1 million annual allocation.

“We got $68,000 from that program two years ago,” Sarah Grant of the New Mexico Farmers Marketing Association said on Friday. “The Santa Fe Farmers Market used some of the money to promote the move of their Southside market. Other market managers used it to buy E-Z UPs for their info stands, and some bought trailers so they didn’t have to schlep stuff from home to the market every week.” The Farmers Marketing Association also used money from the program to install wireless EBT machines at markets so that vendors can accept food stamps.

Will these windfalls for nutrition programs survive final negotiations? Who knows. But they’re not the target of conservative ire or Bush’s veto threats. So far Bush and U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer have been hammering on price supports for sugar, loan rates for certain crops and subsidies for farmers who make more than several hundred thousand dollars per year.

What remains to be seen is how New Mexico’s congressional delegation will vote when the farm bill comes to the table, probably later this week. Spokesmen for members contacted this week all insisted it was too soon for them to take a position on the bill.

However, some clues may come from looking at the way New Mexico House members voted on the Kind Amendment in July 2007. Rep. Ron Kind’s amendment to the farm bill would have radically overhauled farm programs (just the way Bush wants: cutting subsidies for farmers making more than $250,000) while shifting a lot of money to conservation and nutrition programs. Lauded by reformers, the liberal Kind, D-Wis., was accused by some other Democrats of being in collusion with the Bush administration. The amendment failed, 309-117.

Rep. Tom Udall voted for the Kind Amendment, which was supported by the conservative, anti-tax Club for Growth, while Rep. Steve Pearce, who sponsored a bill to abolish the IRS, voted against the amendment.

However, the Club for Growth recently endorsed Pearce over Wilson, citing his 82 percent grade on CFG’s RePORK Card, versus her 10 percent (“She voted to waste taxpayer dollars on subsidies for milk, mohair, and even Viagra!”).

But then, Wilson also voted against the Kind Amendment.

So what does it all mean? Could Tom Udall be more in line with Bush than Pearce and Wilson are? (Has hell frozen over?)

Again, from the San Francisco Chronicle:

"We've wondered if we weren't living in a parallel universe," said Ken Cook, president of Environmental Working Group. "The president has been to the left of [Nancy Pelosi]."

Your reality check should be delivered any day now when Congress votes on the 2007 farm bill.

print Share

Register or log in to rate