Like crop insurance? Lay off food stamps

We hoped that the stars were aligning to produce a five-year farm bill by this fall that would put agricultural conservation at its core while meeting America’s nutrition needs. It’s beginning to sound like the farm bill will be dragged through a food fight in the House over food stamp eligibility. The last farm bill was delayed by two years. We don’t have that kind of time, and we can’t afford a delay over political positioning for the 2024 elections.

Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, a Republican leader and member of the agriculture committee, told our Kate Kealey during a visit to Cherokee she fears an indeterminate delay as House Freedom Caucus members seek to limit accessibility and cost of government nutrition programs (similar measures are being written into state law as part of a coordinated political campaign to undermine SNAP benefits).

Iowans who depend on production agriculture had better get a message through to Rep. Randy Feenstra and other members of the Iowa congressional delegation: If you want a strong safety net for commodity crops, and if you want a strong crop insurance program that is flexible and is subsided by the taxpayers, back off on food stamps. They are a pittance viewed against the vast federal budget and not worth the battle that could claim as a casualty the entire crop production safety net.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack during a visit to Des Moines last week expressed higher hopes that a farm bill could be produced by the end of the year. Ernst may have a better sense of Republican sentiments than Vilsack. The senator and the secretary are pretty much on the same page with Sen. John Thune of South Dakota that the new farm bill must promote agricultural resiliency amid increasingly extreme weather, and it must protect our food security. Thune and Ernst are important allies of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, himself a member of the agriculture committee.

They need to talk some sense into their House colleagues.

We can’t wait two years on a farm bill again. Congress is elected to get the job done on time. By holding out on food stamps, the House threatens to unravel a longstanding agreement between town and country political interests: We will support feeding programs so long as you support farm programs.

There is no question that farm subsidies should be examined to the extent they encourage natural resource depletion and wring diversity out of our production system. That’s why the safety net should be geared toward conservation that builds resilience in an era of climate upheaval. As for food stamps, we have been through this argument so many times before — including during the last farm bill — and we continue to settle the same old points. People are not gaming the SNAP system. They need the help. It doesn’t cost that much. School feeding programs are proven to improve student performance. We have plenty of food in America to share, and unfortunately as the Bible says the poor will always be among us. As a practical matter, it’s a sweet tradeoff to protect a basic farm safety net. Simple politics that some people have a hard time accepting.

US agriculture is in the throes of a climate crisis, from parched corn fields in Illinois to dried-out Panhandle cattlemen. We can’t fiddle while the West burns. Congress needs to act with due haste to protect our food security and provide agriculture with the tools of sustainable production. Perhaps the likes of Ernst, Vilsack, Thune and friends (including most of agribusiness) can move their friends in the House to understand the stakes.

VILSACK WAS IN DES MOINES to announce grants throughout the Midwest for new meat processing facilities. A new beef plant in Mills County will get $25 million. Other processing facilities were in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota in an interesting recognition that cattle are shifting north from the Central Plains to where the water is. Vilsack said the grants are intended to make the meat supply chain more diverse as just three or four companies control most of the production in the US. It remains to be seen whether, after their initial seeding, these companies can survive in the shadow of the big players like Tyson and JBS. The meat industry always has been dominated by a few companies. The names change over the years. What is different now is the lack of enforcement of anti-trust laws or the Packers and Stockyards Act. The government is trying to seed competition into a highly integrated system based on contracted production. History favors consolidation in a mature industry absent anti-trust enforcement.