THE FINAL WORD
The new pork powerhouse: Washington, D.C.; 2004’s big issues

By Alan Guebert, December 8, 2003

Early analysis of the past Congressional year from both the left and the right have been, to be kind, less than favorable. Most reviewers linked 2003 federal spending by Congress and the White House to common items found on most American farms--pork, lard, sausage and butter. A tasty sampling explains.

“Congress nearly always engages in pork-barrel spending as it leaves town for the holidays .... (b)ut this year’s end-of-session binge has gone way beyond pork ...” Nov. 25, New York Times. “We realize that spending is what Congress does for a living (however) ... down the road Mr. Bush will find it harder to squeeze more money for guns out of Congress because he has refused to say no to any butter.” Nov. 25, Wall Street Journal. “The corruptions of Washington are hidden in plain sight ... This, unfortunately, is not scandalous; it is SOP. Yet once in while the hogs of Washington outdo themselves--as they have done in the writing of the Medicare and energy bill.” Dec. 15, The Nation.

While the Republican-led Congress and the politicos in George W. Bush’s White House cut a fat hog this year, last year was even more larded. Combined, the last two fiscal years saw federal spending climb 21%--12% in FY 2002 and 9% in FY 2003. Not surprisingly, military spending over the same period climbed 34%.

The big pig of the year award goes to pre-rigged Medicare drug benefit that does not permit the government to negotiate lower drug prices for seniors, virtually closes the door to cheaper drug imports, and will cost an estimated $400 billion over eight years.

After the bill passed--with some Republicans having to blink “aye” because their leadership had to break so many arms to get the slim majority--new forecasts estimated the bill will cost a mule choking $650 billion or more.

Worse yet, people who have actually read the bill now guess up to one-third of the money will flow directly to pharmaceutical and insurance companies.

Well, at least the nation now knows the definition of a “compassionate conservative.” A “drunken sailor,” explained maverick Sen. John McCain, R-AZ; “Medicare for drug companies,” said one of his colleagues.

Trampled under the rush to spend in order to recess was the Energy Bill and country of origin labeling. Congress promises to resurrect both issues when it returns next week for a non-voting rump session.

The ethanol-enhancing energy legislation is projected to a vote in January. Standing in its way, however, is the amnesty against product liability lawsuits it affords makers of MTBE, ethanol’s main fuel-enhancing competitor. The Senate and the White House are seeking a compromise to move the $30 billion bill forward; the House--in the person of Majority Leader Tom “The Hammer” DeLay, R-TX--wants to retain the gift.

DeLay’s tough stand, bankrolled by his district’s MTBE-making oil companies, is a deal breaker in the Senate. That could change, but far more hogs would have to become sausage to get the needed Senate votes to retain MTBE’s protection.

Unlike the Energy Bill, COOL appears cooked for another two years. In the horse trading that occurred just before Turkey Day, House ag leaders, led by House Ag Committee Boss Bob Goodlatte, R-VA, struck a deal to keep the 2002 Farm Bill’s labeling law but only if its implementation was delayed until Sept. 2006.

(On Dec. 4, Goodlatte suggested an entirely new COOL law, one he described as “right,” could be forthcoming in 2004.)

That means voluntary country of origin labeling for two years past the Farm Bill’s stated deadline. To date, not one food firm has introduced “voluntary” labeling since President Bush signed the Farm Bill in May 2002.

In a Dec. 3 letter to the White House, 165 farm, food and consumer groups protested the dirty dealing COOL underwent in the House. The letter also took to task USDA and the White House for its political maneuvering to gut COOL.

“While the Department and many in your administration have been quick to criticize the law,” the letter correctly noted, “they have yet to offer any constructive advice on how to make this law workable and fair to all affected parties.”

And, the letter continued, the underlying reasons for Republican foot-dragging on COOL, a law 50 million Americans favor, is not cost or trade worries.

“We find it ironic that over 40 of our trading partners have country-of-origin labeling programs, yet with all of our resources and technology, the U.S. cannot determine a method of implementation that provides our consumers with the same information,” it bluntly noted.

The reality of today’s burn-down-the-house politics, however, holds little hope for fiscal restraint or farm-enhancing legislation in 2004. After all, we’re less than month away from the start of what likely will be the dirtiest, costliest general election ever.

2. 2004’s big issues

Despite setbacks in 2003, big issues continue to loom for American farmers and US agriculture. While action on most--or even any--may not be forthcoming in 2004, one thing is certain: all will be discussed in nearly every local, state and federal electoral race.

That’s where you come in. By definition, a discussion involves no fewer than two people. One person will be the candidate; the other should be a citizen. Not a farm group, not a lobby, not a corporation. A citizen.

You’re a citizen, right? What could you bring to this vital and necessary discussion? Here’s a list of five prime farm and food topics, in no particular order that may assist you when you meet the candidates--preferably in a public forum so those who hope to represent you and all farmers are forced to respond on the record.

1. The globalization of food policy: If the national economy is becoming more globalized--and it is--then American ag policy will become more globalized.
   
   Witness the free trade agreement the US and Australia hope to complete before Christmas. News reports suggest it will call for the end of the Australian Wheat Board, eliminate any ag export subsidies by the two nations by 2007, attempt to reduce domestic ag subsidies by 2007, and wind down tariff rate quotas on ag imports by the same date.
   
   All sound like good ideas until you parse the rhetoric. First, neither the US and Australia are big on ag export subsidies, so that’s a freebie.
   
   Elimination of the AWB, long a thorn in side of American wheat producers, however, will make Australia a bigger, cheaper player in global wheat markets. American grain merchants like Cargill and ADM are well-established Down Under and are pushing the AWB into history. Why? Because American wheat exports are on a decade-long slide; Australia’s are on the rise.
   
   The most questionable aspects of the US-Aussie free trade deal are the elimination of tariff rate quotas and limits on domestic ag subsidies.
   
   Slashing TRQs will bring Australian beef and cotton to the US by the boatloads. Limiting domestic ag subsidies--US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick wants the limit set at 5% of American ag’s $200 billion gross revenue, or about $10 billion--would have cut 2003 US farm payments by $9 billion.
   
2. Should global trade policy dictate US farm policy? As sobering as the above numbers are, the pregnant question they raise is equally sobering: When did American farmers agree that global trade policy should dictate domestic ag policy?
   
   You didn’t, of course, and Congress only slightly agreed with the concept when it reauthorized fast track trade authority.
   
   Fast track, however, allows Congress to either accept or reject trade deals. Its first trial in 2004 looks to be the Aussie-US deal, a litmus test the Bush Administration desperately needs to win to get its confusing trade policy back on the corporate rails. But at what cost for American farmers and American farm communities?
   
   Free trade (as opposed to fair trade) has not been a winner for either American industry or American ag. We’ve noted the following numbers before, but all bear to be mentioned in 2004 campaign circles: The US trade deficit has exploded from $103 billion in 1996 to $418 billion in 2003. At the same time, the US ag trade surplus--a rock-solid fact of American farm economics for nearly 75 years--has imploded from a plus-$28 billion in 1996 to just a plus-$9.5 billion in 2003.
   
   At that rate of decline, the US will be importing more food than it exports by 2008.
   
   That means trade’s long-time blessing is turning into a long-term bane for American farmers even without new free trade deals. Especially the new trade deals that limit domestic government programs while promoting food imports.
   
3. Reprioritizing government will not lessen taxes. Let’s restate that in plain English: When is the last time your taxes went down? That’s what we thought.
   
   Yet the so-called fiscal conservatives--Republican or Democratic alike--will claim that they, if elected, will cut government, pare waste and slash taxes.
   
   OK, but where and how?
   
   Truth be told, they can’t; the trend belies the boast. Congress, despite its ability to cut taxes for all the wealthy and most of the corporate buccaneers, is genetically predisposed to spend. And not just your money, but the money of your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Forecasts peg federal budget deficits at $500 billion-plus through at least 2010.
   
   Moreover, if the current less-taxes/more spending policy continues in Washington, federal program costs will be passed down to state and local government bodies. Local officials will then be faced with a devil’s bargain--reduce or eliminate the programs or raise local taxes.
   
   Most state and local taxing bodies are already facing funding shortfalls. More will come, increasing the pressure to follow today’s path--slash funding while raising taxes.
   Hanging in the balance will be roads, schools, small business and agriculture. All are essential to vibrant, caring rural communities.
   
   Balance is the key, however. Until Washington gets the message that today’s spending is unsustainable and the current wealth-favoring tax policy is patently unfair, expect this rearrangement of government to continue.
   
   Then get ready for higher local and state taxes and fewer local and state services.
   
4. COOL is more than a price-enhancing marketing tool. On Oct. 6, Jeff Cook, an auto mechanic, took his family to supper at a neighborhood Chi Chi’s restaurant near Pittsburgh. Soon afterwards, he fell ill. Cook, a healthy 38-year-old, remained ill for two weeks before seeking treatment at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.
   
   Pitt Medical diagnosed Cook with acute liver failure. Two days later Cook underwent an emergency liver transplant. On Nov. 7, he died. The culprit was hepatitis A, contracted, it was guessed, by ingesting uncooked green onions at the restaurant.
   
   Who’s responsible? Who will pay? Just as sure as someone is responsible, someone will pay. After all, the onions that caused Cook’s death come from somewhere, right?
   
   Critics of country of origin labeling almost immediately said that COOL would not have answered that question.
   Bunk.
   
   Had COOL been in force in 2003, the onions, under suspicion from the start of the Pittsburgh hepatitis outbreak, could have been quickly traced to their origin and all buyers of the tainted food would have been alerted not to resell or eat them.
   
   But that didn’t happen; no COOL, don’t you know. As a result more than 500 cases--and three deaths--were tied to the onions.
   
   The Pittsburgh tragedy explains why corporate food conglomerates have fought hammer-and-tongs to clobber COOL; in a word, liability. COOL is a superior tool to both track and assign liability for both good and bad food.
   
   COOL-bashing farm groups use that threat of liability to undercut the law. They claim that farmers and ranchers likely would be liable under COOL for disease and death caused by tainted food.
   
   Bunk.
   
   First, 99.9% of farmers and ranchers don’t sell food to the public. Most food--even raw food such as meat--goes through many (clean or unclean) hands before it reaches any kitchen in America. As such, farm and ranch liability is minimal at best.
   
   Second, if producer liability is an overarching concern, COOL rules can easily be written to protect American farmers and ranchers from it. After all, if MTBE-producing corporations are immune from liability for contaminating the drinking water in hundreds of American cities, surely the two million food producers in the US could be immune from product liability suits in food.
   
   And third, the mere threat of liability lawsuits will clean up the growing problem of food quality in America. According to USDA data, the number of food recalls in the US is growing, not declining. COOL would aid in reversing that decline.
   
   And, by the way, it just might increase the prices farmers and ranchers receive.
   
5. US farm policy must refocus on rural communities. Twenty-five years ago, University of Illinois cultural anthropologist Sonya Salomon spent a year finding out what made a small central Illinois farming community tick. In the process, she charted the connections between the town and its then-89 farm families.
   
   Salomon recently returned to the community to see how it had changed. She discovered that 50 of the 89 farming families were still connected to agriculture; most, however, through land ownership as landlords rather than active farmers.
   
   She also found a community with fewer and bigger farms and fewer and bigger farmers. Many of the community’s new farmers were absentee--they live elsewhere. That’s no big surprise, but the change has brought two other, bigger changes.
   
   First, cash rent has largely replaced the standard, more fair 50-50 shared leases of a generation ago because cash leases are easier for landlords to manage. And second, the absentee tenants spend little money locally. That, in turn, has led to a decline in the once-tight knit German farm community.
   
   But the biggest change Salomon observed was cultural. When she arrived in the town 25 years ago, many of its fourth generation family farmers had reached the age to share their farms with their children, something that had been going on for more than a century. In essence, the still-young older generation was paring back or leaving the farm so the next generation could begin to farm.
   
   Today, however, notes Salomon, it’s just the opposite; the children are leaving the farm for college and urban jobs and the parents are staying.
   
   One of the biggest consequences of today’s full production-low price farm policy is the aging of rural America and the thinning of its economic fabric.
   
   Stated another way, America’s cheap food policy will become increasingly expensive as rural society searches for ways to better care for its towns, schools, roads and aging citizens. What was once self-generating is now self-consuming.
   
   Part--perhaps much--of the upcoming ag policy debate in 2004 should center on redirecting a larger portion of federal ag pie to America’s farm towns to revitalize rural infrastructure, housing, markets and education.

Now go forth and discuss. And remember, if you lead, our leaders will follow.

© 2003 ag comm

The Final Word comes to you by special arrangement. Alan Guebert's regular column, the Farm and Food File, is published weekly in more than 70 newspapers around the US and Canada. Contact him at AGuebert@worldnet.att.net