Not So Fast, Mr. Secretary

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns is committed to far-reaching changes in the 2007 Farm Bill --- a commitment, he says, that was reinforced by the feedback he received from producers attending his Farm Bill forums earlier this year.

While conceding the “definite diversity” that remains among producers, Johanns nonetheless perceives an emerging consensus on some key issues. Yes, the 2002 Farm Bill was well-suited to the economic conditions of the times, he says, but times, they are a-changin’ --- and so, for that matter, has the face of American agriculture.

Speaking before a Commodity Club gathering in Washington, D.C., last month, Johanns questioned whether it still was in the best interests of the American people to stick with a farm policy crafted roughly 75 years ago, “when the face of American agriculture was very different from what it is today.”

Among the areas of almost unanimous support, Johanns cited rural development efforts and conservation programs. He also mentioned expanded market access for U.S. farm products as another area where producers tend to be on the same page.

A major breakthrough in World Trade Organization negotiations --- something the Bush administration is working fervently to bring about --- will only reinforce this consensus as work is undertaken on the new Farm Bill. One result could be a farm bill that places far less emphasis on traditional farm supports --- the so-called amber box programs, such as loan deficiency payments and market loan programs --- and possibly more emphasis on green box programs, which could include environmental stewardship payments, disaster assistance and research and Extension programs, says Jim Novak, an Alabama Cooperative Extension System economist and Auburn University professor of agricultural economics and rural sociology.

Still, as Novak hastens to add, predicting the course of political dialogue is far from an exact science. A number of other issues, both overseas and at home, are brewing that also may factor into the debate.

For starters, some GOP congressional leaders, most notably Senate Ag Committee Chairman Saxby Chambliss (Rep--Ga.), already have stated publicly that Congress, not the Bush administration, will write the final Farm Bill --- a factor that has been reinforced in recent weeks by President Bush’s declining popularity and consequential loss of political capital.

Deficit hawks, who tended to keep their heads down when President Bush’s political fortunes were riding high, also may have profited lately from the presidential loss of clout.

“Because of this, they may end up with a big say in final negotiations and already have begun sharpening their pens,” Novak says.

Finally, the likelihood that free trade issues will figure prominently within the next farm bill will be diminished significantly if stiffening European Union resolve succeeds in derailing the Bush administration efforts to cut farm supports significantly.

Finally, there are the mid-term elections. While recent history has favored the GOP, in the upcoming election cycle, there is the outside chance that political control of one or the other houses of Congress could shift --- a wild card that could have an impact on the shape of the next Farm Bill, Novak says.

Posted by Jim Langcuster at November 7, 2005 05:04 PM | TrackBack