"The Center's plan drops any effort to put a hard cap of $250,000 on payment limits but it could potentially save about $1 billion over 10 years, the nonprofit advocacy group's executive director, Chuck Hassebrook, told Agriculture Online Wednesday. And it also considers regional differences in agriculture, accounting for potentially higher production costs and values for such Southern crops as cotton, rice and peanuts," Looker writes.
The plan also includes "tougher requirements that people must be actively engaged in farming in order to receive commodity payments," an income limit for subsidy recipients, and lower limits on direct payments when prices are high, Looker reports. (Read more) UPDATE, March 28: The plan is "an effort to keep wealthy urban landlords from cashing in on federal farm programs," writes Dien Judge of the Iowa Independent, with a link to a statement from Grassley and Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota.
This morning, Lauren Etter and Greg Hitt of the Wall Street Journal delivered a long but clear explanation of how lobbying and politics, "at least so far," have quashed prospects for major reforms in farm programs, prospects that looked good a year ago. "Influential interest groups, which had toyed with supporting changes, cut deals to get their own piece of the action," write. "Lawmakers who supported an overhaul peeled off as the debate moved into the election year. Historical alliances between rural and urban lawmakers proved difficult to untie. The agribusiness industry plowed more than $80 million into lobbying last year, according to the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks spending on lobbying. Much of that was focused on the Farm Bill." Lobbyists and farmers say the bill provides "a safety net through cycles of boom and bust." (Read more)

No comments:
Post a Comment