It’s all about the money

I always admire the Environmental Working Group for standing up and saying things publicly that other organizations only have the gumption to complain about behind closed doors.  So it doesn’t surprise me to come across a report from EWG today detailing the ways in which Congress is yet again poised to screw sustainable agriculture.  And EWG doesn’t hold back on their rhetoric, either:

Behind the thin green gloss Congressional leaders spread across the subsidy-laden 2008 farm bill, key Democratic lawmakers are hacking away at promises to expand conservation and other environmental programs.

But within weeks of the farm bill’s passage, the Senate appropriations committee sent to the Senate floor a spending bill (S.3289) that would slash conservation measures by $331 million in fiscal year 2009.

Commodity subsidies that provide billions to the richest farmers each year remained untouched.

I’m not surprised EWG is pushing this report, and I’m sure as hell not surprised the Senate is already trying to whack conservation programs while leaving totally unncessary commodity program payments untouched.  And, as noted above, within weeks of the Farm Bill’s passage.  It’s the classic method- promise money to everyone to get the bill passed, then screw sustainable agriculture once the media moves on.  And all those groups that endorsed the farm bill now no longer have the media spotlight to complain in.  Let me just say, any conservation group that endorsed the bill should be screaming their heads off right now about how they were betrayed  But they’re not- and it’s not as if they should be surprised.  The very same thing happened after the 2002 farm bill passed (See EWG’s page for extensive data).

Now, the informed will say “But most of that cut is from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which has a payment limit that is way too high and often is money spent for livestock confinement operations”.  That’s true.  (Though I’ve never seen data on how much EQIP money is actually given to confinement operations, and certainly some EQIP money goes for very good projects.)  But that misses the point.  First some very good programs do get cut.  Second, this is the crap that always happens.  Always.  Why do we put up with it?

If we saw even the slightest hint of cutting farm program payments, the vaunted commodity machine would swing into action.  There would be no end of press releases, news stories, DC visits, and other strategies mobilized to defeat any potential cut.  (Not only that, but anytime the temperature gets above 90 or it doesn’t rain for more than 10 days straight, that machine cranks up, demanding “disaster” assistance.  Sometimes I think they do it just to keep the “machine” well oiled.  More likely, they’re just laying the groundwork for future greed).  Yet time and again, conservation (and other things we care about) get the shaft, and no more than a peep or two is heard from the sustainable agriculture community.  What’s going on?

I’ll just say it:  The sustainable ag movement, as a whole, is too damn nice and has been begging for money for too damn long.  Money, or the lack thereof, motivates most policy decisions, and a close second is fear.  When a politician (or their staff) is afraid they’re going to get their ass kicked, they change their behavior (or at least think twice).  If all they’re going to get is a phone call saying “Gee, we’re really disappointed you did that” and the general public never finds out, they really don’t care.

It’s all about the money.  You want more proof?  Check out Phil Brasher’s latest:

The farm bill expands assistance for farmers who are classified as “socially disadvantaged.” However, women are excluded from the definition for some programs, including conservation benefits, but not for others…

Lawmakers have used different definitions for socially disadvantaged farmers before, but there was more at stake this time because of the special set-asides for the environmental and stewardship programs. Lawmakers decided there wasn’t enough money to cover both women and minorities.

Kate Cyrul, spokeswoman for the Senate Agriculture Committee, said there were strong arguments over the definition when it came to the conservation funding. The “limited funding required that farm bill writers restrict this definition,” she said.

Uh huh.  Evidently the limited money didn’t dictate that ridiculous, stupid direct payments totaling $5 billion per year disappear.  And who does Kate think she’s kidding?  “farm bill writers?”  That’s what you say when you’re embarrassed somebody found out about this.  I guarantee if this was a positive article, it would say “Tom Harkin”.  But when it’s bad, nobody’s willing to name names.

Frankly, it does piss me off that the Senate Appropriations Committee is pulling this crap.  (Oh, and by the way, the #2 Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee that deals with Agriculture is…. TOM HARKIN! And we’re still getting screwed).  But really, it is incumbent on the organizations that represent sustainable agriculture to put the fear of divine retribution into these Senators, because that’s the only way this changes.  And to tell the truth, most of the money cut out of EQIP is almost certainly ending up in WIC- which I believe is more important than EQIP.  But the fact that no one even contemplated taking it from the gluttons sucking at the teat of direct payments is more than I can bear.