Vermonters Worried by 2013 Farm Bill

Vermont farmers have a lot at stake in the drafting of the 2012 Farm Bill, which is expected to include a record number of budget cuts due to the current state of the economy. The farm bill, which is renewed every five years, has been a recurring entity in legislation since the years of the Great Depression, when growers of commodity crops first began receiving subsidies.

Vermont dairy farmers are struggling as a result of the record drought last summer, among other factors. Though grain belt farmers were directly impacted by the drought, the cost burden was passed on to dairy farmers, who are forced to pay a higher price for grain in order to feed their animals. Now these same farmers face the risk of losing the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) safety net they have depended on for years.

This past September when the 2008 Farm Bill expired, dairy policy leaders in the Senate and House pushed for an interim budget plan to serve as a temporary safety net until the new Farm Bill passed. This initiative at the national level was led by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), as well as Representative Peter Welch (D-VT). However, they were unable to divert attention from other priorities in Congress and as a result, commodity farmers dependent on the federal government for subsidies now find themselves in limbo.

Many in Congress agree that it is unfair to put farmers’ lives on hold and continue to push for action.

“The farmers already confront enough uncertainty running their businesses. When we let farm programs expire without enacting a new farm bill, it needlessly compounds that uncertainty and it is irresponsible,” argued Leahy in a speech this month on the Senate floor. He pointed out that both farmers and underprivileged urban classes are suffering as a result of this delay, which has also put funding for federal nutrition and food stamps programs on hold.

“Vermonters, like tens of millions of people across the country, depend upon these programs [when] they are struggling to put enough food on their table during these very tough economic times,” Leahy added.

Now that the 2008 Farm Bill (officially called the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008) has expired, Congress is still unable to agree on a final 2012 bill, which will be called the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012. This $500 billion farm bill is currently deadlocked in Congress during the post-election lame duck session.

“The challenge for the current farm bill is that many conservative Republican members in the House want to see federal government spending cut substantially, which means cuts to programs and interests,” pointed out Stafford Professor of Public Policy, Political Science and Environmental Studies Chris Klyza.

“This influences the political dynamics — a representative from urban Philadelphia may have voted for the Farm Bill in the past because of food aid for her constituents. If that aid is cut, why should she vote for drought aid for western ranchers?” Klyza proposed.

Many conservatives in Congress are pressing for budget cuts all around. The Democrat-led Senate passed their version of the bill in June, proposing budget cuts of around $35 billion over the next 10 years. While this proposal was enough to appease Senate Republicans wary of government spending, the Republican-led House has still been unable to reach a compromise. Up until early this month, representatives had the excuse of being distracted by campaigns for reelection, but now the only remaining obstacle is gridlock.

Gridlock usually refers to clashing partisan interests, but in the farm bill debate it is actually regional interests that are preventing compromise. The recurring farm bill debate is unusual in that it actually transcends political party divisions.

Democrats and Republicans alike from districts with agriculturally-dependent economies tend to push equally for generous subsidies. Similarly, other conservatives find a common goal with liberals involved in the local foods movement: to eliminate excessive subsidies for wealthy farmers who don’t actually need them. Back in 2008, President George W. Bush vetoed the Farm Bill for benefiting overly wealthy farmers, as it guaranteed aid to farmers with a gross income of up to $750,000. The overwhelmingly Democratic Congress overrode his veto.

Some point out that there is an incredible amount of antiquated logic embedded in the farm bill. Josh Slotnick, farmer and professor at the University of Montana who lectured at the College earlier this week, pointed out the injustice in our food system.

“If you want to sell your bike on Craigslist, you are the one who sets the price,” said Slotnick. “For growers of commodity crops, they don’t have that privilege. The buyer sets the price. You’re dealing with a whole different realm.”

Gradual cutback of subsidies would work in the favor of commodity farmers in the long run, gradually giving them more autonomy and stability over their incomes. Budget cuts would benefit smaller farmers by putting them on a more level playing field with large-scale conventional farmers of commodity crops.

In recent years, concerns over the impact of dwindling natural resources and increasing demand due to rising population have pushed conservation issues into consideration under the Farm Bill. Support for local, sustainably grown food was also growing; although the 2008 financial crisis has dampened this support.

Native Vermonter Hillary Chutter-Ames ’13 emphasizes how farms are “the key to maintaining a sustainable local food system and building strong communities.” According to Chutter-Ames, they are “a vital part of the social and economic fabric of Vermont.”

With the uncertainty of the upcoming bill, this social and economic fabric — and farmers’ livelihoods — remain at stake.