Well if the race for President is already over in MN, what about the race for the Senate. It must be a quiet race since I had to look up who was running against Amy. I assume this bodes poorly for Kurt.
Ironically, my Parents were at this Farm show in Redwood Falls. Like most farmers they are somewhat frustrated by what gets piled into the "Farm Bill"... If you don't understand why, look at the 2nd and 3rd links. (ie 80% goes into Food stamps and 6% goes into Conservation)
Maybe moving all the welfare and social programs into the same department would be a good way to start aligning the 185 programs... And actually understanding the real cost / effectiveness.
Twin Cities Klobuchar Bills Spar Over Farm Bill
Wallowa Farm Bill Passes
Powerline Farm Bill
Klobuchar For Senate
Bill for Senate
Thoughts on the Senate race or the Farm Bill?
Farmers have always liked food stamps because they provide a market for what they have to sell. Politically, food stamps has always been viewed as an agricultural rather than a welfare program, which is why it has always enjoyed such support.
ReplyDeleteSome of my farmer friends believe the other way. They figure there would not be much of a farm bill if it wasn't for the welfare aspect. I mean how many city folks think about their food providers?
ReplyDeleteI think the basic reason the farm bill is never very controversial is because city folk do understand where their food comes from and work with legislators from farming regions and states. Farming is full of problems, but one thing farmers do benefit from is a subsidized market for what they produce.
ReplyDelete==Hiram
I think subsidized is probably the wrong word from what I have seen over the years. I think the government encourages farmers to behave in a certain way by applying various carrots and sticks.
ReplyDeleteHold your grain instead of selling it, we'll float you a low interest loan for it. Take that questionable erodeable land out of production and we will pay you some rent.
I have never heard of Farmers getting something for nothing. Often many say they would prefer that gov't got out influencing food policy.
Farming is a difficult business with complicated politics. Agricultural issues cut across party lines. A lot of what people try to do (and this this is hardly limited to politics) is stabilize the business. That's why we have a futures market for example.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of getting something for nothing, I have heard that farmers in the past have received subsidies for letting their fields lie fallow, although I don't know if this continues to be a practice. More generally, I suppose whether farmers get something for nothing depends on how you define nothing and how you define something.
--Hiram
I'd say food stamps are something for nothing.
ReplyDeleteRenting a field to the gov't and foregoing the crop while growing a cover plant while keeping the weeds down is something for something.
Farmers, in effect, get money for their crops. Something on both sides.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
Technically in set aside and crp programs, Farmers get guaranteed money for their land and labor in exchange for giving up raising their crops. (ie at risk income)
ReplyDeleteIn loan programs, the farmers are paid to store and not sell their crops until later.
And the politicians and bureaucrats get to influence the agricultural industry and specific farmers. (ie what's grown, where, how much, when does it go to market, etc?)
Amy will win in a land slide, which is why we hear so little about this race.
ReplyDeleteAbout the farm bill, I know very little about it besides big $ goes for snap (food stamps) which usually helps it pass quickly with bipartisan support from both urban and rural areas.
Also about the farm bill, it is my uninformed impression that much subsidy goes to large corporations rather than to family farms. It is also my impression that little money goes to small organic farms (which seems unfair / unwise to subsidize the unhealthy vs healthy foods)
Landslide is likely a relative word. I assume it will be similar to the Presidential race in MN. (45/55)
ReplyDeleteAs for Organics vs Productive Farming: if we want more food for the poor for less money, then using the latest technolgies to increase yield probably makes more sense. There would probably be massive food shortages if we went back to the 1930's methods across the board.
The genetically modified crops have allowed for higher yileds, less chemical application, less fuel usages, etc. Now let's hope we don't start growing a third arm...