The farm bill is entering a critical phase, with heightened risk of falling prey to the five fundamental fallacies of farm and rural policy. To pass legislation that renews hope and opportunity in rural America, we must confront those fallacies.
Fallacy #1: The best farm bill provides the most money for farm programs, irrespective of other priorities.
Family farmers would be better off with modest, well targeted payments than with bigger payments and no limits. We need farm programs, but we also need to invest in the future of our communities through small business development, beginning farmer programs, and value added agriculture initiatives.
Fallacy #2: We must avoid a divisive fight over payment limitations to get the best farm bill for all of agriculture.
It is not in the best interest of agriculture to pass a farm bill that drives most farms out of business. Big checks to big farms drive up land rents and property taxes, narrow profit margins for family farms, and support farm consolidation. Why even have a farm program that reinforces concentration of land in fewer hands?
Fallacy #3: We cannot pass payment limitations because of Southern opposition.
Southern interests are formidable opponents to payment limitations because they fight hard. But representatives from Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Colorado, Minnesota, and the Dakotas would be more formidable if they joined together to fight just as hard for a farm program that strengthens family
farming.
Southern opposition is intensified by higher payments per acre for cotton, rice, and peanuts. Close the loopholes and rice would hit the direct payment limit at 400 acres. Our representatives must work out a way to calibrate the limits to work for Southern commodities.
Fallacy #4: Ending the three entity loophole by itself is meaningful reform.
Closing the three entity rule has little effect if you keep the current limits and still allow farms to receive double by dividing payments between spouses. Meaningful reform must close the three entity rule and either prevent doubling by spouses or substantially lower the limit for individuals. Otherwise we continue to destroy family farming with the same big payments to mega farms.
Fallacy #5: Spending more on conservation comes at the expense of farm income.
It is true that conservation programs that simply share the cost of adopting a new practice often leave the farmer no better off than before. But farm payments tied to how much you farm also do a poor job of supporting farmers’ income because they are bid into higher cash rents. But there are alternatives. Programs that reward management, such as the Conservation Security Program (CSP), probably do more to increase the farm operator’s income than either traditional conservation or current commodity programs.
Agree or disagree? Send your comments, questions, and opinions to Chuck Hassebrook,
chuckh@cfra.org or call 402.687.2103 x 1018. You can also leave comments on this page.
Dakota Rural Action has been a close ally of the Center for Rural Affairs since the South Dakota grassroots organization was established. In particular, Dakota Rural Action is a key ally in South Dakota on livestock market reforms, beginning farmer and rancher initiatives and on anti-corporate farming laws. Visit them online today. 
