Friday, we discussed how the machinations of Sen. Kent Conrad are making fundamental farm program reform more difficult to achieve. But we should emphasize that reform is not an impossible goal; in fact, we think it is quite likely that the Dorgan-Grassley payment limits proposal will be included in the final version of the Senate farm bill.

Will we see substantially different farm programs in the 2007 Farm Bill? If we’re talking about entirely new programs, the likelihood is very small. But we could well see some real payment limits, if Midwestern farm state lawmakers are willing to stand up in fight on the Senate floor and in the ensuing conference committee. And while not rewriting all farm programs, the enactment of real payment limits would mark a substantial philosophical shift in farm programs, and the importance of that cannot be discounted. And payment limits would save money that could then be put to better use.

There are other positive developments in the farm bill as well. It appears that a substantial livestock competition title may well be included (although not with all of our priorities- expect amendments to be offered at a later date), and Friday Aimee Witteman of the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition mentioned a couple of others over at Gristmill.

In my mind, there are really two types of fights in the farm bill political process. First are things like payment limits, issues that often affect the structure of the agriculture/rural economy and usually engender serious opposition. Second are the program issues- the ones that cost money, usually to increase funding for a program or create a new program. Occasionally those two types of conflict come together. An example would be the Conservation Security Program. The opposition on program issues is usually (but not always) rooted in differing funding priorities, not an ideological fight. Everybody's working with the same pot of money, so if I want money for my priority and it might come at the expense of yours.

Both types of fights are necessary; the results of program fights are often more immediately felt, but I would argue the structural issues have a greater impact over the long term.

So we shouldn’t be all doom and gloom when it comes to the farm bill. There are many, many good programs in the farm bill that do much good. Many of those programs fly under the radar, overshadowed by the most contentious issues. This fight isn’t over, and we can still make a difference. The Senate Agriculture Committee is scheduled to take up the farm bill Wednesday, and we’ll be watching. I imagine we’re going to be better at railing at the injustices of certain farm bill provisions than praising the inclusion of things we like. But I hope that doesn’t obscure the fact that without a farm bill, we would all be a lot worse off.