Opposition to Obama's limit on direct payments includes some of his supporters; he may drop idea

Reaction to President Obama's proposal to end annual direct payments to farms with more than $500,000 in sales has been so negative, even from some of his campaign supporters, that it is being reconsidered, "a source in the administration" tells Philip Brasher of The Des Moines Register, who reported that in his Green Fields blog Friday.

In a story in Sunday's paper, Brasher examines the political fallout: Not only do farm interests say the proposal is unworkable, because it is based on sales and not income, they "are worried and annoyed at the way the administration is portraying them," he writes. "Farmers say that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is unfairly pitting them against poor kids by contending that the nation had to choose between subsidizing 'high-income' farmers or feeding hungry children," Brasher writes. "Leon Corzine, a former president of the National Corn Growers Association who endorsed Obama's candidacy, said Vilsack's argument was 'ludicrous at best' and 'ridiculous.'"

Vilsack, in a conference call with reporters today, indicated a willingness to compromise and change. "I think there’s opportunity here for conversation and discussion," he said, noting that payments in some programs are limited on the basis of gross income and non-farm income.

Brasher asks, "So how did the administration come up with something so sure to run into trouble? One theory is that they needed a certain amount of money to put into school nutrition programs and calculated a way to get it from the farm subsidy account." American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman "suggests the administration doesn't have the people in place who could have told them that it wouldn't fly on the Hill." (Read more)

Vilsack indicated as much in today's conference call, saying the Department of Agriculture had to develop a budget in a very short time with no undersecretaries and "very limited staff."

Meanwhile, the Nebraska-based Center for Rural Affairs reports "Vilsack is reviewing a rule issued by the outgoing administration to redefine what is required to be considered an active farmer and eligible to receive farm payments. The standard became so lax in recent years that investors were considered actively involved in farm management by virtue of participating in two conference calls annually. That allowed mega farms to get unlimited payments by forming general partnerships with investor partners, each qualifying the farm for another set of payments up to the limit." (Read more)