Letter from Langdon: Who Supported Rural?
[imgbelt img= mayancalendarmock320.jpg]There have been loads of rumors about which party is standing up for rural interests. Let’s look at the record before pledging political allegiance.
[imgcontainer left] [img:mayancalendarmock320.jpg] [source]Daily DoseScary warnings about a second Obama administration and its impact on rural places neglect the facts. The Democrats have had a better record on rural issues over the past four years, Richard Oswald finds.
If it ain’t the end of the world then maybe it’s just time to turn the page.
Some saw the end of days even earlier, in November, when President Barack Obama was reelected to his second term. I don’t really think he’s that bad for us, but a lot of people here do. Mainly, the Obama-phobes said he was going to regulate farm dust and make it impossible for farm kids to do their chores.
Well, the Environmental Protection Agency farm-dust rules never happened. According to administration officials, the rules were never even planned.
And the child labor regulations were meant to safeguard the children of migrant workers but gained attention when some said these laws would apply to family farms, where farm kids do chores every day. The whole thing was widely publicized as an attack on middle America. Some farm groups helped promote the rumor. But the child labor regulations never were put into effect either.
Obama was even going to take our guns away. After the election, panic sales of firearms tripled; gun shops hung up pictures of the 44th president and named him “Top Gun Seller of the Year.” Now the National Rifle Association has proposed placing armed guards in schools. This doesn’t look like gun control to me.
And while most Democrats pushed for a five-year farm bill in September of this year before the election (which is normally the very best time to write any farm-friendly bill), Republicans dragged their feet and promoted deep cuts to the U.S. Department of Agriculture budget.
Most of USDA’s budget goes toward feeding poor and disadvantaged people: the elderly, retired people whose Social Security doesn’t provide enough, kids of poor parents, and schoolchildren. Even though we benefit from the USDA food programs, big swaths of rural America supported cuts to them by voting Republican, even though rural people and their communities rely on these programs as much or more than big cities.
Even some conservative farm groups supported cutting entitlements in the USDA budget. In return for that, urban Republicans — the conservatives who don’t normally have much good to say about USDA’s ag programs — implied that Congress should leave its hands off most of ag’s measly 2 percent of the USDA budget.
In the end the farm bill was derailed mostly by Republicans, with a little help from House Democrats from more conservative districts. Nothing much happened until well after the election when Congress drove us to the edge of the fiscal cliff. Once the brakes were on, Congress included a nine-month extension of the old farm bill, which takes us to September.
That could be very bad for agriculture. One reason is that after all the talk against public entitlements from USDA, Congress continued direct payments to what is commonly referred to these days as “production agriculture.” With those big farms experiencing an unprecedented period of good prices, giving them payments originally intended to bolster profits in times of low prices amounts to an unneeded, unjustified entitlement. It’s money we didn’t earn and don’t really need.
Now, even though many of us didn’t want the direct payments, farms have put themselves on the hit list with welfare moms and deadbeat dads. What’s worse, when the issue is revisited in midterm, between elections, our ability to influence the outcome of the farm bill will be at low ebb.