Blog #9 Farm Bill Reauthorization

(1) What sections of the bill do you feel limit progress and change in creating a local food market?

The farm bill continues to provide large subsidies to big farmers. Meanwhile, some small farmers receive absolutely nothing. This is because the commodity payments are only given out to certain crops, such as corn. In addition to this money being unfairly distributed to big, corporate farmers, it also encourages these farmers to produce these crops in ever-increasing amounts, driving the price down so far that small farmers cannot compete. There is no regulation about the method of vertical integration that is used by these big farmers, including no rules about conflict of interests, etc.

(2) Despite that the food stamp program is taking on major cutbacks, 80 percent of the $96 billion annually will still go to food stamps. 15 percent of the money goes to farm subsidies and crop insurance.  What’s left will go to conservation, rural development, renewable energy, and other farm programs.  Is this a good way to distribute the farm bill money, should it be more “evenly” spread, or should it focus largely on a different area?

I think it should be more evenly spread. According to familyfarmer.org, the new bill does little to increase wetlands protection, and permits unlimited logging by the Forest Service. It also no longer includes direct lending programs, something many small farmers rely on. It even almost entirely phases out research. I think that by leaving such a small amount of money to cover conservation, rural development, renewable energy and other farm programs, we are both neglecting to invest in the future, and neglecting to support the small farmer. By reducing the amount of money we spend on farm subsidies and redirecting that money into the aforementioned areas, we can begin to support these two fundamental components of farming (the small farmer, and the future of farming), and also begin to change the culture of a government that caters to corporate farms.