We Need to Talk...About Farm Policy

I confess that I shudder at the phrase: We need to talk. Immediately my mind begins to race and pulse quicken. Sweat forms on my brow as my gut tightens. What did I do? What does she think I did? How long is this “talk” going to take? You guys know the feeling. The only thing worse is to hear, “We need to talk later,” because, of course, we will then spend every second between now and “later” inventorying our infractions and preparing a confession that includes far more than we’re being accused of.

That said, we need to talk about farm policy. Boy, do we need to talk. And not just the farmers, lobbyists and bureaucrats, but all of us.

Why? Because farm policy affects all of us (and millions of others around the world). Because so few of us understand it. And because it’s broken.

As commentator and former Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower says, “If you eat, you’re involved in agriculture.” To that, I’d add that if you pay taxes or care about rural communities, the environment and/or poor people around the world, you ought to care about agricultural policy, the $25 billion it passed out in assistance last year and the huge impacts it has.

With respect to understanding, farm policy in this country has to be among the most Byzantine of all governmental arenas. It’s rife with convoluted jargon, counterintuitive methods and unintended consequences. I’ve worked on rural issues for 18 years and still get headaches trying to keep track of direct and countercyclical payments; loan deficiency payments; amber, green and blue boxes and the like.

Finally, farm policy doesn’t even work well for most of the people it purports to help. As reported in The Washington Post last week, the lion’s share of payments goes to a small percentage of producers of a few select crops—some who don’t even need help. Payments also go to landowners—some who aren’t involved in farming at all. Left wanting are all the growers of so-called “non-program” crops like fruits, vegetables and livestock. Also left wanting are the nation’s rural communities, even those that are home to farmers receiving big government checks. Indeed, analysis by the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank shows that farm payments don’t improve the economy in counties where most of the payments go, if anything they depress it, creating not growth but dependency.

None of which is to say that Americans shouldn’t care about our farmers. We should and most of us do. But we ought to make darn sure that the people who receive farm payments are farmers and that they are farmers who really need the help. To do that, we have to talk.

As President of the Environmental Working Group, a non-profit research organization, Ken Cook has done more than anyone else to start that conversation. In 2004, EWG’s farm subsidy database began posting the names of farm payment recipients beside the amounts they receive. That information got many people talking and many others crying foul. Cook has now gone a step further by challenging former House Agriculture Committee Chair Larry Combest (R-TX) and chief architect of the current farm program to a series of debates on the subject. The debates, Cook says, would help inform the public as Congress formulates the next Farm Bill. Prominent farm journalists and policy experts have agreed to moderate the debates, which would be held around the country and which Cook calls “PowerPoint at thirty paces.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Combest—who now lobbies for clients such as the Minnesota Corn Growers, the American Sugar Alliance and the USA Rice Federation and has staunchly defended current farm policy in the press—isn’t interested. Over the phone, Mr. Combest told me he had no intent of debating Cook, didn’t appreciate the public delivery of the challenge and suggested that Cook travel the country learning about farmers and their circumstances.

While I wasn’t surprised by Mr. Combest’s refusal to debate, I was greatly disappointed. What better way could there be to improve a policy that affects so many than to have an open and honest debate on the issues? Here’s hoping Mr. Combest reconsiders, because we really need to talk.