You are viewing the Center for Rural Affairs newsletter archive for 2002-2006.
Visit the current newsletter and recent archive pages.
Visit the Center for Rural Affairs Home Page.

The critical budget cut decisions will be largely made by the budget, agriculture, and appropriations committees. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate will devise a plan for cuts. But the real decisions will be made once both Houses meet in conference committee to hammer out the differences in their bills.

Because the Great Plains and Midwest is home to some of the key members of those committees, rural people in this region have a real opportunity to come forward and make a difference during this crucial stage of the budget battle.

On the House side, two members in critical leadership posts include Colin Peterson (D-MN, 7th District), who is ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee and Jim Nussle (R-IA, 1st District) who sits as the Chair of the important House Budget Committee.

Others on the relevant House committees include: Representatives Lucas (R-OK), Moran (R-KS), Gutknecht (R-MN), Johnson (R-IL), Osborne (R-NE), King (R-IA), Latham (R-IA), Emerson (R-MO), LaHood (R-IL), Herseth (D-SD), Pomeroy (D-ND), and Boswell (D-IA).

On the Senate side, Senator Grassley (R-IA) sits on both the agriculture and budget committees. If you are one of his constituents, call him and tell him thanks for pushing for effective payment limitations and to keep up the fight.

Other Midwest and Plains states members of the Senate sitting on the relevant committees include: Senators Nelson (D-NE), Coleman (R-MN), Dayton (D-MN), Roberts (R-KS), Brownback (R-KS), Conrad (D-ND), Johnson (D-SD), Feingold (D-WI), Stabenow (D-MI), Salazar (D-CO), and Durbin (D-IL).

Contact: Traci Bruckner, 402.687.2103 x 1016 or by email, tracib@cfra.org 

Remembering Four Inspiring Advocates

We were saddened in recent weeks by the passage of four people who played important roles in our work.

We recognized retired Seward, Nebraska farmer Albert Ebers in 2001 with our Seventh Generation Award for lifetime service to rural America. He was the former Master of the Nebraska Grange and played a major role in passage of Initiative 300. We remember him most for his belief in democracy and the power of conscientious citizens speaking out – as evidenced by his persistence in letter writing to newspapers and elected officials.

Former Center Board member Dorothy Garrison of Burwell, Nebraska was a feisty Sandhiller. Her booklets “A Borrowed Horse Never Tires” and “What Did You Do with All the Scythes?” were collections of sayings and times remembered from a life in the Nebraska Sandhills. Dorothy brought limited words but unlimited wisdom to board meetings, while making them fun and interesting. She will be missed.

University of Wisconsin Rural Sociologist Fred Buttel succumbed to cancer at the age of 56. Raised on an Illinois family farm, Fred never forgot where he came from. He was a national leader in studying the impact of technology on family farms and looking for ways to make land grant colleges and researchers responsive to the needs and concerns of family farms.

Bishop Lawrence McNamara of the Catholic Diocese of Grand Island, Nebraska was a passionate voice for social justice. His keynote address at our 2000 annual meeting reminded us that it is vital “that universal basic human rights take precedence over individual accumulation of wealth and resources; that natural resources be treated as belonging to the whole human family – present and future; and that natural resources not be treated as speculative commodities or be allowed to fall under the control of a few rather than having ownership widely distributed.”

We thank each of these people for lives that inspired us and made a difference. – Chuck Hassebrook

Living the Good Life: Appreciating the Beauty of Simplicity

Last month we highlighted a couple that fell in love with Smith Center, Kansas and made it their home. After reading that article, several people came forward and told us their story because they felt a calling to do so.

One such couple lives right here in Lyons, Nebraska where the Center is located. Shortly after reading last month’s article, we received a phone call from Will and Karen Rogers, both of whom wanted to share their story about moving to Lyons from Omaha.

Will and Karen are both retired from Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company and have lived in Lyons for two years. They were eager to express how much they love living in Lyons compared to their life in Omaha. Will had written a list to describe the pros of living in Lyons that expressed both of their experiences. They were such words as:

• quiet, peaceful
• friendly and helpful people
• personal attention

What I found most fascinating about this couple is that they described Lyons in much the same way many of us who live in a small rural communities would describe our own town. Many of these listed traits are sometimes taken for granted, but for some, like Will and Karen who lived most of their life in an urban setting, they are able to appreciate the beauty of simplicity.

Both Will and Karen Rogers try to be active in the community and have attended several fundraisers for various activities. Will likes to think the good food they dish up is the draw. Karen serves on the Altar Society for the local Catholic Church, and Will is active with the local assisted living facilities board.

The message that this couple wants to send in this article is that they feel Lyons is a hidden secret that needs to get out. I sense they are right, and by the number of responses received last month, I think more than a few people are finding out the advantages in living in a small rural community.

Contact: Michael L. Holton, michaellh@cfra.org for more information on community revitalization.

Corporate Farming Notes
Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers report released; R-CALF USA files lawsuit against USDA; another I-300 lawsuit

>> The Center for Food Safety (CFS) released a report titled, “Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers” in January that examines Monsanto’s litigation pursuit against farmers for seed patent violations. The report identifies Monsanto’s three-tiered pursuit of farmers: 1) investigations; 2) out-of-court settlements; and 3) litigation against farmers Monsanto believes have violated their contract or engaged in patent infringement.

Ninety lawsuits have been filed involving 147 farmers and 39 small businesses or farm companies. The largest judgment thus far in Monsanto’s favor stands at $3,052,800. Overall, Monsanto has been awarded judgments totaling $15,253,602.

Clearly, this is a hard battle for farmers to win; Monsanto has put up 75 staff members with a $10 million budget. The report offers several critical policy options that stand to reverse this abuse. To view the report, go to www.centerforfoodsafety.org  CFS has established a toll-free hotline for farmers facing lawsuits or threats from Monsanto to get guidance and referrals: 1.888.FARMHLP.

>> On January 10, 2005, R-CALF USA filed a lawsuit against USDA’s published final rule that will allow the Canadian border to reopen and import live cattle under 30 months of age and additional Canadian beef products from cattle of any age. The border is scheduled to reopen on March 7, 2005.

The lawsuit, filed in the District Court of Montana, is asking the court to block USDA from taking this action in order to protect U.S. cattle producers and consumers from unnecessary risk. The fourth BSE case in native Canadian cattle was announced the day after the lawsuit was filed.

The District Court and Congress are two bodies of government that can block USDA’s actions. Congress has until March 7, 2005 to pass legislation that would veto the USDA rule.

>> On December 30, 2004, a lawsuit seeking to have Nebraska’s restrictions on corporate agriculture (also known as Initiative 300) declared unconstitutional was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. The lawsuit was filed by six individuals, including recently retired State Senator Jim Jones, who based his legislative career on introducing and supporting legislation seeking to amend Initiative 300.

Other Plaintiffs claim that I-300 has harmed their agricultural operations or their ability to form business structures with others, primarily beginning farmers and ranchers. Other Plaintiffs argue that I-300 is discriminatory against farmers and ranchers with disabilities. This is the second pending federal lawsuit against Initiative 300.

Contact: Traci Bruckner, tracib@cfra.org for more information.

Rita Retires

Chances are that if you’ve called the Center you marveled at the friendly and pleasant person who answered the phone.

That was Rita English-Murphy, who retired last month after 15 years with the Center. Our staff contributes in many ways to our work. Rita’s special contribution was the way her cheery disposition gave our spirits a lift when we most needed it. Rita and her husband Don have retired in Walthill.

Rita’s departure marks a milestone for the Center. She is the first staff person to retire from the Center in the 32 years since its founding. We wish Rita an enjoyable retirement and thank her for her years of service and most of all – her smile.

Fresh Promises for America’s Rural Places
Presenting strategies and practices that are helping to revitalize rural communities

Finding Local Food -- The number of people seeking locally produced food continues to grow. On the supply side, a number of producers, and future producers, all around us wonder how to market their goods.

Farmers’ markets are one way to meet this increasing demand, but they mostly reach local consumers. Online farm directories are another useful tool. This month we highlight a few.

Many online directories allow you to search by state and/or zip code. They offer customers access to contact information about producers and to the producers, a way to get their name and products in front of the consumer’s eye.

>> Community Supported Agriculture is a national database managed by the Robyn Van En Center for CSA, in cooperation with several other organizations. Visit www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/csa/csastate.htm for more information.

>> LocalHarvest was founded in 1998 and is now one of the top informational resources for the Buy Local movement and the top place on the Internet where people find information on direct marketing family farms. Visit www.localharvest.org for information.

>> Stewardship Food Network, sponsored by the Land Stewardship Project of Minnesota is a state directory: www.landstewardshipproject.org/pdf/SFN.pdf 

>> Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement has a directory on their website, www.iowacci.org/Issues/farming/Food/food_producers.htm where you can find many products, including meats, fruits, vegetables, and honey available for purchase in Iowa.

>> For customers in Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia, visit Future Harvest CASA at www.futureharvestcasa.org/amazing.html 

>> In Pennsylvania, visit www.buy localpa.org 

>> If you are thinking of starting a directory, a good place to start would be FoodRoutes, www.foodroutes.org/toolsforaction.jsp where you can find information about the “Buy Fresh, Buy Local Campaign,” its toolkit, and other promotional tools.

A recent study in Maine showed that shifting just 1 percent of consumer expenditures to direct purchase of local food products would increase farmers’ income by 5 percent. Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association estimates that by encouraging Maine residents to spend just $10/week on local food, $100,000,000 will be invested back into farmers’ pockets and the Maine economy each growing season. Imagine the impact such a small change in buying habits could have across the nation.

Contact: Kim Preston, kimp@cfra.org for more information or to submit ideas for this column.

Governor’s Budget Generally Looks Good for Rural Nebraska
Support for education and entrepreneurship are hopeful signs for rural citizens, but they are only a first step

Like most states, Nebraska’s state budget has faced myriad challenges over the past several years. A weak economy brought a downturn in tax receipts, and mandatory spending items (such as Medicaid) combined to bring about severe spending reductions in most state programs.

As we detailed over the past three years, these budget cuts fell hardest on rural communities and rural people. Cuts to rural development programs and to programs funding institutions funded by property taxes (schools and local government, primarily) disproportionately impacted rural Nebraska.

As the 2005 Nebraska legislature convened, the economy appears to have made a significant (though cautious) comeback. As the Governor’s recommended budget was announced in January, there was optimism that this economic comeback would result in a reversal of the budget-cutting philosophy – especially as it affects rural Nebraska – of the past several years.

In general, the Governor’s proposed budget does well by rural Nebraska. Education and entrepreneurship – major parts of rural communities – are the big winners of the Governor’s budget recommendations.

Education – Funding for K-12 education is the largest proposed spending increase in the Governor’s budget. The Governor’s budget proposes to fully fund Nebraska’s K-12 school aid formula, in stark contrast to cuts in public school funding that occurred at times over the past several years. The Governor’s budget proposes spending over $186 million more over the next two years for public school aid. Of course, how this funding is divided among school systems will be the real test of how rural schools fare in the ultimate state budget. However, it appears that rural schools and rural taxpayers may be among state budget winners.

Entrepreneurship – Entrepreneurial development has been the recent “hot” economic development policy idea in state government. Nebraska is following suit this year with a major small business and entrepreneurial policy and budget initiative in the Governor’s budget.

Most states unfortunately tout small business as part of their entrepreneurial initiatives, and then enact policies that do not address rural economic development needs. The term “entrepreneurial” is often lifted to promote economic development policies that do not benefit small business development in rural communities. While the Nebraska entrepreneurial initiative has some of this, the proposals in the Governor’s budget specially target programs that have proven to work in rural communities.

As we have shown in much of our research and work in communities, small business development is an economic development strategy that creates jobs, income, and long-term benefits in rural communities. The Governor’s budget and entrepreneurial initiative supports that by proposing to restore and double the funding for the Nebraska Microenterprise Partnership Fund and by funding the Enhancing, Developing, and Growing Entrepreneurs (EDGE) program, an entrepreneurial training program administered by the University of Nebraska (the Center’s REAP program is a recipient of funds from the Nebraska Microenterprise Partnership Fund).

The Governor’s budget also proposes to create and fund tax credit programs that would provide incentives to invest in entrepreneurial activities in communities and neighborhoods that are experiencing high levels of out-migration or low per capita incomes. Many rural communities in the state could benefit from such programs.

Unfortunately, the Governor’s budget recommends terminating funding for the Main Street Program, another rural small business development program. This program has benefited many rural communities and should be continued.

We welcome the Governor’s support of these economic development programs that have demonstrated their worth in rural Nebraska. We are particularly grateful for the recognition in the Governor’s budget that microenterprise “is a primary development assistance program in rural areas of the state.” This validates the point that microenterprise and small business development is an integral and permanent part of the state’s rural development and economic development policy portfolio.

The Governor’s proposal to restore and increase funding for small business development is an important first step in strengthening the rural economy. But it is only a first step.

Until the state gets serious about investing in rural Nebraska the way it invests in metropolitan Nebraska, it will never solve its long-term budget problems, because we will continue to have too few economic opportunities and too few people of income earning ages to support services for our children, our retirees, and our community institutions.

Contact: Jon Bailey, jonb@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1013. You may also send an email to Jon to sign up for the electronic weekly Nebraska Legislative Update.

A Tax Credit for the Little Guys

Nebraska State Senator Matt Connealy has introduced the Small Business Microenterprise Tax Credit Act (LB 309) to provide tax credits for starting small businesses and family farms and ranches in economically depressed rural and urban areas.

Unlike most job creation tax incentives, it is aimed at owner operated small businesses employing five or fewer people and at beginning farmers and ranchers. It would support self-employment as well as job creation.

The Act would provide a 20 percent tax credit for investment in qualifying businesses. The credit would be refundable – meaning that businesses would receive a check from the state if they have insufficient income to make use of a tax break.

As this legislation was introduced, the legislature was being lobbied for even more big business tax breaks. But state policy is already out of balance. Nebraska invests disproportionately in big business and high growth areas and under invests in small business and struggling communities.

Any new tax breaks for big business should be offset by measures to correct the excesses of current law and balanced by passage of LB 309. It’s time to start investing in the economic engine for the rest of Nebraska – small enterprise. – Chuck Hassebrook, chuckh@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1018

Nebraska Rural Development Commission Recommendations

The Nebraska Rural Development Commission has released its recommendations to the legislature and Governor, with a strong emphasis on rural entrepreneurship – both on and off the farm. Its priorities include:

>> Appropriate $1 million annually for the Agricultural Opportunities and Value-Added Partnerships Act (LB 71), to provide grants to farmers and ranchers, cooperatives, and other groups to enhance agricultural income and increase self-employment opportunities in farming and ranching. Grants would be available for initiatives ranging from producer-owned processing facilities to marketing cooperatives for high value crops and livestock.

Senator Elaine Stuhr of Bradshaw is sponsoring the Act. This Act was originally proposed by the Center in 2000 and passed under the sponsorship of Senators Matt Connealy and Roger Wehrbein, but it was subsequently eliminated in state budget cuts.

>> Appropriate $2 million annually for the Building Entrepreneurial Communities Act (LB 273) to make grants to communities with low incomes or population loss. Grants would be awarded for education and technical assistance to energize small business development and entrepreneurship, to facilitate small business transfer, and to build community capacity, leadership programs, and other similar programs.

>> Double to $500,000 the tax credits available through the Nebraska Community Development Assistance Act for use by communities in attracting donations to community development initiatives (LB 334). Introduced by Senator Ray Janssen, it would broaden the purposes beyond community betterment projects to include small business development.

The commission also endorsed other initiatives, including several Center priorities. It endorsed doubling funding to $500,000 for the Microenterprise Partnership Fund, which supports small business development programs including the Center’s REAP program. It is the primary means by which Nebraska invests in small business development.

The commission endorsed Endow Nebraska (LB 28). Introduced by Senator Matt Connealy, it would provide tax incentives for donations to community funds and other endowments that support community development.

Finally, the commission endorsed the Small Business Microenterprise Tax Credit Act (LB 309). Initiated by the Center and introduced by Senator Connealy, it would provide tax credits for starting small businesses and family farms and ranches in economically depressed rural and urban areas. 

Contact: Chuck Hassebrook, chuckh@cfra.org or 402.687.2103 x 1018. Chuck serves on the Rural Development Commission.

Essay: Citizen Action Turns around Payment Limits

The only way to turn things around in rural America is for rural people to take responsibility to make it happen.

Many are, and their efforts are bearing fruit. Our new report Fresh Promises and the related regular features in this newsletter detail practical farm and community development initiatives that are making a difference and creating hope in rural America.

No less critical are citizens working to reverse the bias toward bigness in public policy that undermines family farms, small business, and rural communities. A case in point is the Iowa and Nebraska farmers who took it upon themselves to reverse the historic opposition to farm program payment limitations of the Iowa and Nebraska Corn Growers Associations.

Many scoffed at the effort and said it not could be done – was a waste of effort. But these farmers took it on anyway and won. They did it by working and persisting in the face of opposition and defeat in their initial efforts.

Now the state Corn Growers Association in two of the nation’s four leading corn states are on record in support of farm program payment limitations. They are joined in their support by the Iowa and Nebraska Farm Bureau Federations – also a result of grassroots action by concerned family farmers.

These are historic developments. These organizations and every other major commodity organization have long opposed payment limitations. But over 80 percent of farmers – the people these organizations ostensibly represent – support payment limitations. And if they change to reflect the views and interests of all of agriculture, Congress will follow.

This issue is critical to more than farmers. Congress will almost certainly make deep cuts in farm and rural spending this year. It can cut rural programs – small business, conservation, cooperative and community development programs – or it can impose payment limitations. The former would damage rural America. The latter would help. Adopting an effective payment limitation is the single most effective thing Congress could do to strengthen family farms.

We often hear that rural people or farmers are a small portion of the population and thus can do nothing to change public policy. That is just not the case. In fact, only rural people can redirect that institution and the members of the agriculture and rural committees in Congress, primarily from rural districts, that shape farm and rural policy.

So we take hope and inspiration from the efforts and success of the farmer leaders making that happen. Their efforts call to mind the words of the late Bishop Lawrence McNamara to those assembled at the Center’s 2000 annual gathering, recognizing their determination to withstand “the big Powers that want to take control of American agriculture away from the people.

“I believe in the depth of my heart,” he said, “that history will someday record that your lives and your efforts greatly helped us all to recognize, to resist, and to arrest that movement – and to help turn this world of ours in the direction of becoming what God intended human society to be when He created it in the very beginning. History will surely record that your lives … really meant something. And I thank you.”

Agree or disagree? Send your opinions or comments to Chuck Hassebrook, chuckh@cfra.org 

Editor: Marie Powell