A farmer's look at Ag policy

This is by a retired dairy farmer. Most of it has to do with the massive red flags raised by the pick of Tom Vilsack as Ag Secretary. I'm quoting the concluding paragraphs, which suggest that all is not lost by any means.

In a Sep­tem­ber inter­view, Mr. Vil­sack (at the time an advis­er to the Biden cam­paign) said ​“I don’t think most farm­ers want gov­ern­ment pay­ments,” not­ing a ​“need for new poli­cies that sup­port a more resilient farm sec­tor.” Under a Biden admin­is­tra­tion, he added, ​“the USDA could set up region­al food-sup­ply mar­kets and direct fed­er­al incen­tives to farm­ers who adopt cli­mate-friend­ly prac­tices.” Right on!

Let’s give Vil­sack cred­it for embrac­ing that kind of think­ing. And let’s lift up the idea of a just food sys­tem, feed our­selves, pay our farm­ers and farm work­ers fair­ly and pay every­one else a fair wage — as Bernie Sanders says, ​“a min­i­mum of 15 bucks an hour.” Let’s admit that forc­ing over-pro­duc­tion of dairy, or any com­mod­i­ty, on the world mar­ket is a los­ing game. If folks like Rogue Riv­er and oth­ers can export their spe­cial­ties, more pow­er to ​‘em.

Ricar­do Sal­vadore at Union of Con­cerned Sci­en­tists stressed that ​“any change in admin­is­tra­tion is an oppor­tu­ni­ty to strike in a new direc­tion. So, obvi­ous­ly, going back to a [USDA] sec­re­tary of the past is not the way to strike in a new direc­tion. That is sta­tus quo.”

Giv­en a sec­ond chance, will Tom Vil­sack be that ​“some­one with vision for a just food sys­tem” that Joe Maxwell hoped for, some­one who will Build Back Bet­ter, or will it be ​“déjà vu all over again”? The fate of farm­ers, rur­al com­mu­ni­ties and our food sys­tem depends on the answer. - In These Times

This has an interview with the new Chair of the House Ag Committee, Rep. David Scott (D-GA).

New NAFTA apparently limps to the finish line

To be clear, New NAFTA, aka the U.S., Mexico, Canada Trade Agreement, regarding which a deal was announced yesterday, does have some improvements over the existing one.  According to the text it does, anyway. Whether, for example, new environmental and labor protections will be enforced remains to be seen.

But in other ways it’s not really any better at all. The content of this blog often reflects my interest in farm issues, and that’s where I’m going, here:

But what exactly is the win for farmers in the new USMCA? Nearly all tariffs for agriculture were removed under the original NAFTA. The International Trade Commission, which analyzes trade deals for Congress, projected that the USMCA would result in a slight net deficit for agriculture trade: meaning we would import slightly more than export. The small projected increase in agriculture exports – mostly dairy to Canada – would have no substantive effect on the ongoing, dramatic loss of small and mid-sized dairies in the Midwest.

Grading trade deals solely on the value of goods crossing the border has always obscured the real winners and losers. The original NAFTA, combined with the formation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the 1996 Farm Bill, led to the ramping up of agricultural production and an increase in agriculture exports. It also led to an almost immediate drop in commodity crop prices and farmer income. In fact, since the original NAFTA we’ve seen the steady consolidation of agribusiness firms and of farmland ownership, the loss of hundreds of thousands of small and mid-sized farms and independent ranches, and the rapid growth of large-scale concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) fueled by cheap (often below cost) feed. We now have a largely integrated North American agriculture market, where young cattle from Mexico and feeder pigs from Canada routinely cross borders to be finished here. For agriculture, NAFTA’s real winners were not countries, but global agribusiness firms like Cargill, JBS, Tyson and Smithfield that operate in all three countries. - IATP

As far as the politics goes, this isn’t going to be huge for the 2020 election. Nothing else has changed the fact that half of American adults (that is, almost twice the percentage that actually voted for him, in 2016) - including 60% of women - want Trump gone, like, yesterday, whatever it takes, and this won’t, either. We just rightfully loathe and despise the guy, as the utterly repugnant, despicable failure as a human being that he is. But I’m adding this as a politics junkie thing.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), an adviser to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said a deal that the AFL-CIO's endorsed "could be problematic," but vowed to reserve judgement until senators got a presentation on the agreement. "I just hope he hasn't gone too far in Speaker Pelosi's direction, and the AFL-CIO's direction that he might lose some support here," he said. "My concern is that what the administration presented has now been moved demonstrably to Democrats, the direction that they wanted." - The Hill

Trump policies are devastating for farmers, but will that change how they vote?

Despite the news about calling people back in to process loans - a wholly inadequate “fix” if there ever was one - it’s ugly, and it’s going to stay that way.

Donald Trump has literally ruined thousands of farms that have suffered tremendously with the large drop in commodity prices and falling income. Trump’s reckless trade war with our allies has cost billions so far. Through it all, however, the farmers have largely stuck with him. - Daily Kos

From a political perspective, the question is, how many farmers, and other people in farm country, will consistently change their voting habits? As in, away from continued support for corrupt, idiotic right-wingers, and toward intelligent progressives who aren’t just in it for themselves?

I expressed a fond, but admittedly faintly forlorn, hope that it would happen here in the south part of MN-08, in time for the election. Which it didn’t.

Plenty of farmers, especially old ones, bless their hearts, are not going to change their politics no matter what. Part of it is just lifelong habit that is sealed tight. And part of it is…well, I’m far from the only one who can attest personally that it ain’t fun to look in the mirror and face the fact that you got suckered and used, in whatever context. People in general will engage (without realizing it) their motivated reasoning to avoid that at all costs.

It won’t take many farm country voters to flip, to start consistently flipping elections as well. But I have yet to see any serious indication that it’s happening, even in the face of the vicious, demented reality of Traitor Trump and his minions. Hopefully, before too many more years, or better yet months, it will begin.