Republican Farmer and Candidate Could Do Without Subsidies!

An eager reader sent me a note about District 19 House candidate Edward Van Gerpen from Avon asking when Van Gerpen had served in the Legislature. I check the historical index (neat-o!) and find he served four terms in the House, from 1985 to 1988 and from 1993 to 1996.

I also find a transcript from the Farm Bill Forum at the 2005 State Fair which includes Van Gerpen's rejection of farm subsidies. Mr. Van Gerpen is addressing USDA Undersecretary Tom Dorr and a question posed by moderator Michelle Rook: "[H]ow should farm policy be designed to effectively and fairly distribute assistance to producers?"

Mr. Secretary and Michele, I am Ed Van Gerpen from Avon which is about 100 miles south here, Avon, South Dakota, Bon Homme County. I farm with my two sons. I’ve been farming for about 50 years. As I look back we’ve had about every imaginable farm program you could have. So I guess I’m not overly optimistic that you are going to come up with the ultimate Farm Bill.

I find that as I talk to people more and more that they say the only thing we haven’t tried is no Farm Bill. And I personally would be one vote in favor of no Farm Bill as far as subsidies is concerned. But I think we need to be involved in the disaster part of it.

I would also like to center on question number three as far as payments. Yesterday I was in northwest Iowa and I know Mr. Secretary, you are familiar with that area, they raise excellent crops there in Sioux County. And this dairyman had just finished cutting silage and he says, one field he went and got his LDP, and he got 40 cents a bushel and the corn made 200, so he got $80 an acre subsidy on that excellent crop.

Where I live, we are in the dry area this year and our corn will maybe make 30, 40 bushel. If I would get that same LDP payment, I would get $16. Now, he was actually making fun of it. He says, “I don’t need that $80.” He says, “I’m getting a really good crop this year.” And I think that just shows some of the inconsistencies of the Farm Bill. The higher crops you raise, it seems like the more money you make when it’s just reversed. So I think the government should be involved with the disaster end of it, but not the subsidy part of it.

And I guess another reason I’m so against the subsidy part of it, I have a list here of the payments from 1995 to 2003. And that’s available on the Internet. But the tenth, number ten, nationwide was Ducks Unlimited in Cordova, California. They received $20,391,000. Now, how can that possibly happen in a Farm Bill, Ducks Unlimited receives that kind of money?

Thank you, Mr. Secretary [Edward Van Gerpen, Transcript of the South Dakota Farm Bill Forum with Under Secretary for Rural Development Tom Dorr and Moderator Michele Rook of WNAX, South Dakota State Fair Huron, South Dakota, 2005.09.07].

And thank you, Mr. Van Gerpen, for you forthrightness on one of the biggest examples of big government interference in South Dakota's free market.

Now tell me again, why haven't we heard similar forthrightness on this issue from our Republican candidate for U.S. House? (I can think of 3,058,152 reasons.)

Herseth Sandlin vs. Noem: Where to Cut Farm Bill?

Part 2 of South Dakota State Fair Congressional Debate analysis

The first question at Sunday's ag-focused debate asked what cuts the candidates would propose for the farm bill.

Kristi Noem went first. She said that farmers are looking more for risk management assistance than direct payments. She said the 2008 Farm Bill moved in that direction. Noem then lamented that only 18% of South Dakota farmers participate in the ACRE program.

Noem took a moment here to mention that we need someone in Congress who understands farms (the implication being that she's a better choice since she has lived on a ranch while managing her hunting lodge, a never-mentioned insurance business, and her mom's Watertown café than her opponent who grew up on a farm, then went away to college and Congress).

Noem proceeded to say that South Dakota needs permanent disaster relief. She pointed to $75 million in disaster payments the state has received but complained that the U.S. House missed an opportunity to make those payments permanent.

Ultimately, said Noem, we need to simplify programs like ACRE to make it easier for farmers to take advantage of federal assistance (as her family has, to the tune of $3,058,152 in farm subsidies from 1995 to 2009, a haul establishes the Noems has the 18th biggest recipient of farm subsidies in South Dakota over the last 15 years).

Now read all that again. The question was about making cuts in the farm bill. Noem hinted at cutting direct payments in her first sentence, but the rest of her answer focused on making more assistance available to farmers.

Herseth Sandlin listened and called Noem out. She said the question was about cuts and said Noem doesn't offer specific solutions but just tells you what's already in the bill.

Herseth Sandlin said direct payments will take more cuts, simply because they are harder and harder to justify to taxpayers. She said cuts to conservation programs in the 2008 Farm Bill were a prelude to future hard decisions (I'm not sure I like that answer—we're going to cut more from conservation?!—but she's telling us where the cuts will happen).

That said, Herseth Sandlin did go farther afield, saying that the cuts already made by her House Ag Committee are the kinds of responsible cuts every committee should be making. She said her committee found $6 billion in savings in the 2008 Farm Bill, redirected $2 billion to support necessary programs, and put $4 billion toward deficit reduction. Herseth Sandlin said that while ag programs can take some cuts, she will demand fiscal responsibility like that from all areas and not let the farm bill be the lone whipping boy.

Assessment: Talking cuts is unpleasant. Talking cuts to ag spending at the State Fair is downright risky. Both candidates do some dodging, but Herseth Sandlin gives the more direct answer and takes a hard shot at her opponent. Advantage Herseth Sandlin on substance and elbows.

Farm Bill -- Still Plenty of Corporate Welfare

It's always nice to see some South Dakota conservatives and liberals finding common ground. Lake County organic farmer and ag activist Charlie Johnson submitted the following comment to Rick Knobe's Viewpoint University the other day:

I wonder if you share my opinion that the 2007 (or better put) 2008 Farm Bill is a legislative vehicle for personal greed not good policy.

Also I'm sure that you agree, we don't need to be developing a "means test" for receiving farm payments. Just implement a hard cap that no individual will receive assistance beyond the cap regardless of how large they want to get. Or if you can't swallow that, just eliminate the subsidies. When farmers and farm groups lobby from a position of greed rather than focus on issues like beginning farmer, nutrition, conservation, credit policy, the only people they continue to convince (or fool) is themselves.

Charlie tells me that Rick Knobe, a good conservative, agreed. Charlie also notes that the Center for Rural Affairs would like to see this farm bill vetoed. (See CFA's Dan Owens on what happened when President Eisenhower vetoed the 1956 farm bill.)

Both Obama and Clinton support the pending farm bill: Obama says "The bill is far from perfect, but with so much at stake, we cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good." Clinton takes the same line and chides McCain and Bush for wanting the bill vetoed.

Is a rotten farm bill better than no farm bill? Obama supporter Dennis Wiese spouts the corporate line that subsidies to rich farmers are good for small-town economies and suggests that Obama "would not believe that the funds that have been spent have been wasted." The compromise necessary to crank out a politically viable farm bill producing more handouts for the rich ag-industrial interests, which Professor Schaff helpfully enumerates. Ugh. It reminds me how much I miss Dennis Kucinich, who, by the way, showed his unflagging support of the little guy by voting against the farm bill.