Regional bias tips farm views

In the farming world the view of U. S. ag policy is directly affected by the perspective from the farm gate.  For example, California farmers generally see things differently from farmers in the Midwest.

One recent bone of contention has been the price of corn.  As part of the nation’s leading dairy state California dairymen don’t like paying historically high prices for corn to feed their cows.  Basically that is the result of the demand to provide corn to make ethanol, considered by some as artificial demand created by government policy gone awry.

Even growers of the same crop are often divided by regional differences.  Apple growers in Washington have a different viewpoint than those who grow apples in Michigan, New York or California for that matter.  And non farmers express strong opinions about subsidies received by tobacco growers in the South.

A new subsidy for Midwest farmers is being considered as part of the 2012 Farm Bill, the policy guide that is rewritten by Congress every five years.  With broad support from corn belt representatives the discussion stage is already promising to drive the wedge deeper between regions.

In a nut shell, or perhaps a corn husk, the legislation proposes to give corn, soybean, cotton and rice farmers a free insurance policy that maintains those historically high returns for their crops if prices dip as little as five or 10 percent. It’s called “shallow loss” insurance.  Many, perhaps most of the potential recipients already have insurance that kicks in if market prices drop further.

Opposition to the proposal is coming from environmental groups, conservatives and from the American Farm Bureau, the country’s largest farm organization.  The Farm Bureau fears that it will encourage farmers to make riskier decisions and drive up the price of land.

It’s hard to believe that Farm Bureau is not taking its stance to protect farmer and consumer users from the higher prices of Midwest commodities that will result.  It is also believable that the organization is planting its feet against subsidies generally, partly in response to the general public’s opposition to them.

Congressman Collin Peterson, ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee sees the attitude in support of the generous insurance plan as coming from an “entitlement mentality.”  He said recently that farmers need to resist the attitude that says:  “We have this money and it belongs to us.”

Further he said: “I want to make sure cotton has got an effective safety net.  I want to make sure peanuts and rice have an effective safety net – as well as wheat and barley and oats and corn and soybeans.”.  But he rejects the idea of guaranteeing permanent record prices for any of these crops.

Most California farmers are not acquainted with safety nets.  Many of them buy crop insurance that shields them from disaster in case of a total crop failure, but those premiums come out of their own pockets.

It’s past time for farmers to overcome their regional differences, at least on the major national issues.  As long as what Collin Peterson calls an entitlement mentality prevails among Midwest farmers and their congressional representatives it will be difficult to achieve.

Perhaps the lead toward unity should come from leaders.  Isn’t that what elected representatives are?  Or should be?

Most California farmers will agree that the subsidy system is already badly overbalanced in favor of Midwest and Southern farmers and the crops they grow.

They can attest that rides on the free market roller coaster are not always smooth, but they are truer indicators of market demand than what the cushion of subsidies provides.  

That’s a true California farm point of view.  Those who can’t align with it might consider a move to. say, Des Moines.