Two things had to happen.
1) Congressional supporters had to fight as hard to protect family farms as opponents fight to protect large farms, and

2) Supporters had to embrace payment limitation calibrations to treat southern commodities equitably – to kick in at comparable acreages to northern commodities and affect comparable percentages of farms. That’s good policy, and it would have enabled southerners to vote for a farm bill that strengthens family farms.

But none of that happened. Instead Congress crafted an illusion of reform that does little more than provide political cover. (We explain the payment limitation provisions in the farm bill feature, click here for more.) The people of rural America deserve the truth about why it happened.

Commodity groups, American Farm Bureau and most southern policy makers opposed reform, as they always have. However, the decisive blow came from those who claimed to support family farm reforms but this time dealt them a blow.

National Farmers Union – The prairie/plains based Democratic leaning farm organization was positioned to play a big role with Midwestern Democrats chairing both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees. But in 2006, National Farmers Union President Tom Buis called payment limitations a red herring, said they were no priority, and spoke against committing farm bill resources to rural development. That view carried the day.

Farmers Union historically favored activist government to strengthen family-size farms. Farm Bureau historically opposed “interference” in markets and the structure of agriculture. This time, the ideological adversaries came together in support of maximizing farm payments with no regard to their impact on family farming. They quibbled only over the form of payment.

Prairie/Plains Populists – Democratic congressional candidates scour the countryside for votes by proclaiming themselves the champion of the little guy. But the House farm bill increased the payment limitation with no significant resistance from prairie/plains state representatives who had promised support for tighter limits. They supported the bill enthusiastically.

In the Senate, North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad pledged to oppose payment limitations in forming an alliance with Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss. When the Dorgan Grassley payment limitation bill came before the full Senate, Conrad brought along former payment limitation supporters Ken Salazar (D-CO) and Debbie Stebenow (D-MI) to provide the margin of victory for the opposition. Several prairie Democrats supported the Dorgan Grassley reform, and several of the region’s Republicans opposed it. But the difference was the defection of Democrats who had previously supported family farm reforms.

Administration – The administration talked a good line on reform but in many respects undermined the effort. It refused to support the one true reform on the table – the Dorgan Grassley bill. Instead, the administration deflected the focus to its ineffective proposals that purported to deny payments to high income individuals but in reality did little. Worst of all, the administration refused to implement the recommendations of the Government Accountability Office to use its administrative authority to close payment limitation loopholes.

Agree or disagree? Send your questions and comments to Chuck Hassebrook at 402.687.2103 x 1018 or chuckh@cfra.org.