The Farm Bill and New Mexico
Editor’s Note: In addition to her many other community service efforts, Margarita Mercure Hibbs is a leadership specialist for the My Rural America Action Fund, which addresses issues important to rural Americans. In her transmittal of this article, which was also submitted to various newspaper organizations, Ms. Mercure Hibbs notes that, due to a clerical error, the veto override was delayed until this week, and that Representatives Udall and Pearce supported this bill, while Representative Wilson did not.
by Margarita Mercure Hibbs
The Farm Bill, officially known as the Food, Conservation and Energy Act, is not perfect. That does not however, diminish how vital it is in our efforts to feed the world, supply energy for our nation, conserve our resources, assure a cleaner environment, improve our water quality, and advance the quality of life for millions of Americans. There are realities for rural Americans that should not be forgotten as we peer into the future strengthening our state and our nation. With the ongoing anxiety of a deepening recession, exorbitant gas prices and local families who lost their homes in the Trigo fires, the larger question is, are we a nation that cares for our rural people, or is this merely lip service paid during political campaigns?
For example, in Torrance County, according to the New Mexico Public Education data of 2003-2004, we know that 39.60% of children in the Mountainair School District, 25.64% of children in Estancia School District and 14.54% of children in the Moriarty School District were living under the Federal Poverty Level. The percentages of children participating in the Free Lunch Program are 60%, 58% and 41% respectively. (Source: Kids Count Data Book). Presbyterian Medical Services reports that the average Social Security income of a single senior in Torrance County is $600 per month. Our own Bethel Community Storehouse of Moriarty reports that in 2005 there were 200 seniors receiving food pantry boxes each month. New Mexico Human Services Division estimates that 26.6% of the population in Torrance County is receiving Food Stamps.
It is important for urban and rural Americans to realize that even though the Farm Bill suggests that this is strictly a rural concern, the fact is, this is also an urban concern. This is an opportunity to recognize the tangible values that rural America brings to the dinner table everywhere. With the growing concern for quality food products in the market place, it is extremely important to strengthen America’s farmers and their supporting communities to remain viable and strong for current and future needs.
Nearly 70 percent of the Farm Bill is invested in nutrition programs, notably school lunches, food stamps and worldwide feeding programs. These programs are supported by churches and synagogues, anti-hunger groups and food banks, organic food producers, specialty crop growers and nearly every farm and commodity organization. Food banks help nearly 90,000 New Mexico families each month from going hungry.
Thousands of working poor New Mexicans suffer from a lack of food. Our state is third in hunger and more than half of New Mexico students benefit from the school lunch program. The average food stamp benefit is a mere $1 per person per meal and the minimum benefit level has been stuck at the same level for 30 years. Who of these people should be denied help?
“The bill also helps farmers who grow specialty crops such as chili, onions, hay, greenhouse plants, and pecans by providing $400,000 annually in grant funds to the New Mexico Department of Agriculture to help market and promote “grown in New Mexico” products and to improve the methods of growing and harvesting these crops. Additional funding will be available to universities, such as New Mexico State University, and producers for research on disease prevention, improved breeding, mechanization, and food safety.” (Source: Senator Jeff Bingaman, 5/29/08)
Given the merits of the bill, the conditions in our economy and the people that this bill will serve; how can any candidate support this veto? President Bush promised he would veto the Farm Bill. Well he did, even though both the House and Senate have given it strong bipartisan support. It was no surprise that Senator McCain joined President Bush in turning his back on rural America by declaring the he would have done the same if he were president. Senator McCain and Mr. Bush have similar records of patently ignoring the concerns of rural communities.
The Bush veto, supported by McCain ignores the needs of rural communities and, if not overturned, would damage vital efforts to improve conservation and provide for the research needed to develop the next generation of renewable fuels. Hopefully, the procedural aspect of keeping this bill will not undermine its success. The Conservation Reserve Program is New Mexico’s largest agricultural program, providing $57.4 million to more than 2,300 recipients in our state.
Both McCain and Bush have consistently supported “corporate welfare” in the form of subsidies and massive tax cuts for defense, “Big Oil” and other big business contractors. Their joint opposition to legislation that would help rural America shows their disdain for food producers and programs like access to broadband that greatly improve the lives of rural citizens. For instance, they oppose additional funding in the bill to purchase Native American and locally-grown foods.
With the presidential election less than six months away, voters in small towns have been forewarned that we can expect an extension of Bush policies in a McCain administration if he is elected president. By his statements, he appears to have turned his back on rural voters. In November, we will have the chance to let Senator McCain know how it feels.
3 Responses “The Farm Bill and New Mexico”
Ms. Hibbs’ post does not tell the complete story as to the “Farm Bill.” While Americans have long had a love affair along with general respect for “small” farmers and ranchers, some have grown weary of providing subsidies to huge corporate farm owners.
I would urge anyone who is angry at President Bush or Senator McCain (or any other politician supporting the Bush veto) to fully examine and read the content found at this website and many of the links found there:
http://farm.ewg.org/farm/index
At the outset, we would welcome a thoughtful and reasonably detailed discussion of the provisions of the Farm Bill, its merits, and its disadvantages. From Ms. Mercure Hibbs’s description, one would tend to suspect that this is a very complex and broad-based bill. We invite Ms. Wilson and Mr. McCain to comment on their reasons for opposing the bill.
The EWG Farm Subsidies Database contains a substantial amount of relatively fascinating information. I would caution viewers of that site against simply reviewing the summary information and making judgments. For example: It is important to note that, in viewing data associated with top recipients, the subsidies are broken into three categories: conservation subsidies, disaster subsidies, and commodity subsidies. A cursory review of some of the top recipients reveals that the percentages of the total represented by these categories, as a percent of the total, varies greatly from recipient to recipient.
It may also be relevant to note the total 1995-2006 total subsidies for those in each of the Congressional Districts:
– District 1 (Wilson) – $22.1 million
– District 2 (Pearce) – $286 million
– District 3 (Udall) – $594 million
Clearly, the constituencies in Districts 2 and 3 can be expected to have a far greater interest in farm subsidies than the constituency in District 1. They would also have more interest in, and knowledge of, issues facing rural communities.
On the one hand, Mr. Bush’s proposed $200K adjusted gross income limit above which farmers could not receive any seems overly restrictive. On the other hand, the opposition cites near-record commodity prices and soaring demands for key agricultural products. It certainly seems reasonable to increase subsidies to compensate for difficult times for farmers, but that also suggests that decreases during profitable times. The problem, of course, lies in defining just what factors would influence the increases and decreases, and how such decisions would be reached.
It is perhaps relevant to note that there is apparently far more to the bill than just subsidies. Consider that this is a $307 billion (over 5 years) bill. According to the EWG Farm Subsidies Database, the total USDA subsidies for farms in the U.S. totaled about $13.4 billion – which in five years would amount to about $67 billion. As Ms. Mercure Hibbs notes, there are a number of critical programs in this bill that are unrelated to agricultural production but important to rural communities – and others, as well. Having these issues bundled into a huge, broad-based piece of legislation has the effect of requiring constituencies and their representatives to juggle a difficult balance between supporting proposals they favor and opposing those they deem improper.
The question arises: Should all these issues remain within the purview of a single bill, or should we acknowledge that perhaps they are simply too complex to combine into a single piece of legislation?
Can anyone say earmarks? I think this bill is full of them. It would make much more sense to place the rural programs that have to deal with children and even adult nutrition and education in separate bills. The bill is misguided and many of the programs addressed have little to do with farming, although they do address some issues in rural areas that may have no farming whatever.
Additionally, unless I am reading total lies, it doesn’t seem that paying subsidies for corn and soy beans (very important food crops) to use in the manufacture of ethanol makes any sense. When you do the math and factor in all of the expenses involved with the subsidies, manufacturing costs and the storage and transportation of ethanol you see a topsy-turvy cost to benefit ratio. Subsidies on those crops means that we are paying for the ethanol at the farm through subsidies and through increased prices at the pump. Corn and soy bean ethanol offers a poor solution to our fuel dilemma.
$200,000 adjusted gross income might be overly restrictive? Please restrict me to $200,000 adjusted gross income and I’ll give someone a subsidy. ;>)