An open letter to policymakers

EDITOR'S NOTE: Associate director Mike Duffy attended a meeting where the following letter was drafted and sent to Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) as he opened debate on the 2002 Farm Bill. We're reprinting it as a message for all policymakers, and as a guide to help our readers evaluate the legislative progress on the newest farm bill.

Dear Legislator,
On October 25, 2001, a group of veteran family farm advocates and farm policy experts gathered at the Rainbow Lake Lodge outside of Chelsea, Iowa, to discuss solutions to the current political stalemate on federal farm policy. The meeting was convened by former State Committee Director Gary Lamb, a lifelong farmer and former policy advisor to Senator Harkin.

From the outset, the group recognized the difficult position Senator Harkin is in, given both the inherent complexity of current farm programs and the tension that exists between competing interests dependent on government payments and a growing chorus of critics. Adding to the challenge has been the difficult time frame resulting from the ill-considered House Farm Bill proposal and additional budget pressures in the wake of September 11.

The group agreed that articulating a vision for rural America and setting goals for farm and food policy would enable all other policy ideas and discussions to be evaluated in context. For its part, the group started with the goal of achieving a more economically healthy and diverse rural economy that supports a growing middle class.

The group concurred with the point made by Dr. Neil Harl that benefit/cost analysis seems absent from the evaluation of our current programs, hampering our ability to understand the economic impact of current farm programs on the wider economy. Given that the recent history of farm programs is littered with rhetoric about "saving family farms"—with no demonstrable success—the application of benefit/cost analysis to our programs is long overdue. This analysis should include community impacts, ecological impacts and social costs as well the economic impacts.

The group further believes that approaching the policy debate on the basis of shared values might further encourage dialogue and problem solving among policymakers. For example, the values of fairness, equity, respect, stewardship, husbandry, entrepreneurship, security, and opportunity all resonate with various participants in this debate. Policy alternatives should be evaluated to see whether they support these values.

The group made four assumptions:

1. That farm programs are largely structured to benefit large agriculture and agribusiness interests by encouraging more production and lowering the price of outputs. The failure to more effectively target farm program benefits has led to the demise of the small and medum-sized operations and ensured that farm program benefits are capitalized in higher cash rents and land prices.
2. That given current economic and budget conditions, there will be limits and perhaps reductions in the amount of money the Congress will spend on farm supports in the future.
3. That farmers who currently participate in the program need more income to continue farming, and would prefer to get it from the marketplace rather than from direct government payments. There needs to be a mix of measures to raise farm income including policies that raise prices by balancing supply and demand and policies that support income through direct payments.
4. That a comprehensive cap on government payments at or below $75,000 is needed to free up resources for other policy objectives such as conservation, competition and direct producer subsidies.

There is substantial evidence of an increasing gap in income between urban and rural America. Many of our poorest counties are rural and dozens are located in the upper Midwest. This trend is continuing despite the tens of millions of dollars allocated through farm programs. A strong U.S. economy requires all sectors to be strong, including farmers and rural businesses.

Key elements of a balanced and successful farm policy would include:

• Increasing farm gate income to stabilize and revitalize local economies
• Targeting farm program payments to small and midsize farms
• Encouraging rural entrepreneurship
• Re-establishing meaningful competition in all sectors
• Supporting the creation of value-added enterprises that increase the farm and ranch share of food system profits and strengthen small and midsize farms. This should include processing as well as marketing cooperatives. It should also include support for developing new markets that reward farmers who produce products in ways that make them more valuable to consumers (e.g. organic, natural, etc.)

And while the nation is rightly fixated on the issue of security in a military context, we must broaden that view to include global and domestic economic interests and food security. Poverty and hunger fuel social unrest everywhere. Just as rising incomes are the solution to poverty, so too is producing food at a profit the key to domestic and global food security.

We urge a closer examination of the claims that low-priced U.S. food exports serve as a positive economic engine at home and also serve as a positive substitute for strong local food economies in developing countries.