All I did was ask a question. You are the one that turned it into some sort of personal quest.
If I asked for more money for National defence, would that be supporting welfare for soldiers? I see keeping our food growing in the US as vital. If welfare for farmers means my food comes from this soil, so be it.
Actually, I wasn't upset. See my bio page. I just don't want there to be any misconceptions about what the Grange supports. There has already been accusations of communism on this thread.
Fletcher Calls For Farm Bill Reform
FARM BILL
Agriculture is critical to the health and prosperity of our Nation. Farming and ranching are the foundation of our $1 trillion (with a "Tee") food and fiber business and nearly $60 billion in annual exports. It is responsible for 16% of total economic activity in the country, and almost 18% of the country's jobs. We must protect agriculture. That being said, I believe we should take a closer look at the Farm Bill.
Although the Farm Bill has been scheduled for hearings this month, as I write this report it is expected that action will not be taken until next year.
Despite the events of Nine-Eleven, it appears that most commodity groups and agricultural organizations will pursue full funding of the proposed Farm Bill. However, there is one area of the Bill that goes totally against current Grange policy, and it is this area that I charge the Agriculture Committee to examine as they deliberate this year's policy statement.
Do you know what magnate Ted Turner, basketball player Scotty Pippen, Chevron Oil Company and the giant Archer Daniels Midland all have in common? They all receive farm subsidies from the government. Nationally, nearly 50% of farm income is derived from subsidies. In California, that amount is considerably less, around 14%.
But the payment of millions of government dollars to millionaires must stop lest we lose the program altogether. You may have noticed that we are seeing more and more editorials and stories in the urban press protesting "farmer welfare." Even the Bush administration is questioning this portion of the program which currently calls for $170 billion over the next 10 years. Adding fuel to these fires, the current Farm Bill calls for the elimination of caps on subsidies and contains no provisions for targeting. Payments would be made depending on the size of the operation - a small, family farmer would receive little money, while large corporate farms would receive the most.
Currently, the Grange stands alone among recognized farm groups, with policy that calls for targeting recipients on the basis of need, not size, and opposes the elimination of caps. In fact, current Grange policy calls for a payment limit of $50,000.
1 charge the Ag Committee to examine the Farm Bill and Grange policy. Our policy, which calls for a cap of $50,000, was set over 10 years ago. Is it enough in today's economy? In reaffirming our call for targeting, do we need to more clearly define those targets?
And to those who would do away with subsidies altogether I ask: given current events and the very real threats of bio-terrorism, are the few dollars you would save worth the risk of entrusting the safety of our food supply to countries outside our borders? Yes, we must keep the American farmer solvent and viable, but I don't think that should include adding to a perfectly sound corporation's bottom line.
Ag FLEX
While still in its planning stages, I would also ask the appropriate committees to consider endorsing a proposal of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture called the Agriculture Flexibility Partnership Act, or "Ag Flex."
Ag Flex is a program that allows the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Environmental Protection Agency, Food & Drug, and Interior to delegate to states, with strong accountability safeguards, the administering of Federal programs within the states. It would be at the option of state Governors to participate in this partnership and identify those programs they wish to administer. In exchange, states are required to demonstrate enhanced accountability.
Significant gains have been made in addressing traditional agricultural environmental concerns when federal, state and local governments work together. Soil erosion is down. Wetlands protection has increased, and wildlife habitat has been enhanced. But all too often programs managed by federal bureaus are administered with one-size-fits-all regulations. By shifting the administration to the States, it may be possible to tailor the program to the need.
Under Ag Flex, states rather than the federal agencies would have the delegated authority to administer and implement the selected federal programs. While Ag Flex authority is broad, certain fundamental requirements may not be waived, including those pertaining to health, safety and civil rights. Authority would be granted for a minimum of 5 years. Ag Flex is a totally volunteer program. No state will be mandated to assume a task they do not feel comfortable with administering.
As programs are delegated to states for implementation, accompanying funds would also be allocated. 95% of the current federal budget spent in that state on any particular program would go directly to the state for disbursement using block grants. The remaining 5% would be used for an in-state office by the federal agency transferring the program to help coordinate and assist states in the transfer and administrative process.
The plan would allow the federal agencies to grant waiver authority to states to remove or reduce certain federal statutory or regulatory requirements in exchange for states waiving comparable state regulations.
Current plans call for the initial pilot program be limited to the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Interior and Commerce, and is still in the proposal stage. It is the concept I recommend that we support, and I am asking for a policy that can be carried to National Grange.