I thought it was over. Like a modern day Don Quixote, I tilted away at the windmill, blogging and firing emails off to my representatives in Washington, rallying for Farm Bill reform. I was not alone. Over 350 pro-reform farm bill editorials hit the mainstream press. The calls for subsidy reform fell on deaf ears at Congress, however, as the 2007 versions of the Farm Bill failed to adequately address the issue.
As the great hope for a better Farm Bill that included subsidy reform amendment Dorgan-Grassley died, the final proposed bill was just left with some token nods to food program assistance and limited support for specialty farmers. Real reform slipped away into the night along with 2007.
With the new year comes a glimmer of hope.
And, that hope comes from a most unlikely source. It seems that the Bush administration, in a fervor to slash all non-Iraq spending, has promised a veto if Congress does not come up with a farm bill that doesn’t feature additional spending. As a result, the subsidy reforms are being revisited, particularly the income cap for eligibility.
The revised plan would call for a lower cap on income for subsidies, but the amount of that cap is a point that has yet to be agreed upon. The house places the cap at a $1 million “hard” cap and a $500,000 “soft” cap that would not apply to people with at least two-thirds of their income from farming. The Senate proposed a $750,000 “soft” cap.
The White House has called for a much lower $200,000 “hard” cap, saying that this cap would end subsidies to roughly 40,000 people.
Opponents of the approach advise that none of these measures will be effective. There are loopholes large enough to drive a combine through, which would allow the larger producers to evade the subsidy caps. As a result, reform activist group, The Center for Rural Affairs, is calling for voters to again urge Congress to consider better approaches to real subsidy reform, such as those offered by Dorgan-Grassley.
Big news for the wind industry, big implications for water.
