UPDATE: Today at Farm Policy, Dan Morgan analyzes the week's activities in the House. He notes some of the partisan tones surfacing and again points out that there really is not any less money to work with in this farm bill as compared to 2002, despite the oft-repeated claims of Ag Committee members. It's a good read, and it ends with this politically astonishing quote from Chairman Peterson:
We just completed a phone interview with Wisconsin Congressman Ron Kind (D-3). Kind is the lead sponsor on two pieces of farm bill reform legislation (FARM21 and The Healthy Farms, Foods, and Fuels Act of 2007). The Center is not endorsing these bills, but we always like to evaluate all reform proposals on their merits, and we hope all elected representatives do the same.
You know, you go to Minnesota for a couple of days and what happens? The Farm Bill goes off the rails and you're left with your head spinning and mass confusion in the home office. It isn't pretty, but we think we know what's going on. Kind of.
The Center for Rural Affairs has said many times – farmers, ranchers and rural communities want, need and deserve livestock market reforms that restore competition and ensure access to equitable markets for all livestock producers.
Yesterday I wrote a post about Chairman Peterson wanting to cut one type of trade-friendly payments to increase another type of payments that are not trade friendly. It looks like he won't have to cut the trade-friendly direct payments. From Congressional Quarterly, via FarmPolicy.com: