EDITORIAL: To grow or not to grow? - Opinion

PRINT THIS Popular

Jul. 14, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: To grow or not to grow?

More unintended consequences from our Byzantine farm policy

Anyone who hasn't been asleep in a cave for 50 years knows the U.S. government pays farmers not to grow crops.

Formerly, the rationale for such programs was frankly admitted: By reducing supplies, the government keeps grocery prices high, pleasing farmers.

Most Popular Stories

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: What stops mass murderers? A gun

SHERMAN FREDERICK: Call evil by its rightful name

EDITORIAL: Terrorism on trial

EDITORIAL: A pre-9/11 approach to terror

LETTERS: Public-sector workers are still doing well

LETTERS: Harry Reid: Working hard for all Americans

EDITORIAL: They took our jobs!

EDITORIAL: 'That's the ticket!'

Our politicians are the greatest, all right

EDITORIAL: I believe in free speech, but ...

One might think that would be a political nonstarter, as there are far more grocery shoppers than farmers. But a rule of economics says that the smaller number of farmers can gain enough to make it worthwhile to lobby (some would say "bribe") Congress to support such programs, while the couple of bucks in higher prices levied on each cart of groceries isn't enough to motivate the average shopper to hire a competing lobbyist in Washington.

The farmers win.

Since 1985, backers of this longtime scam have been able to add another rationale. Paying farmers "rent" not to grow row crops -- including corn and soybeans -- on 34 million acres across the country is now identified as a "conservation" program.

Some of the land is used as a buffer along streams and rivers. A typical contract under the program lasts for 10 or 15 years. Anyone wishing to opt out has to pay a penalty and refund all the rent money to the government.

Enter the new ethanol boondoggle, in which 25 percent of America's corn crop has been diverted to the distilleries to be turned into "white lightning," once an illicit intoxicant but now known as the "ethanol" being mixed into our auto fuel, supposedly to reduce pollution.

Since the United States exports grain to so much of the world, the resulting explosion in prices has led to food riots in Africa. And corn is also used as animal feed. Yes, meat prices have gone up, but there are limits to what consumers will pay. Pork producers say they're currently losing $30 per pig.

The solution? The National Pork Producers Council and others are lobbying Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer to waive the penalties for putting "conserved" agricultural lands back into production, freeing up millions of acres to be plowed again.

In September, contracts will expire on 1.2 million acres, and in the next four years the numbers jump: 3.9 million acres under contracts that expire in 2009, 4.5 million in 2010, 4.4 million in 2011 and 5.6 million in 2012.

Higher prices have farmers champing at the bit to farm that land. If it'll feed to hungry, why not?

Not so fast, say the environmentalists. Fifteen environmental organizations this week sent a letter to Secretary Schafer, declaring that a penalty-free opt-out of Conservation Reserve Program contracts would "deliver a devastating blow to the nation's soil, water, and wildlife habitat, and significantly increase global warming."

"The reason it's in the Conservation Reserve Program, it's environmentally fragile, it's highly erodible land, and we've invested a hell of a lot of money in getting cover on this land and putting it to bed, basically," says Ralph Heimlich, an environmental consultant to the Environmental Defense Fund and former deputy director at the USDA.

Scott Stephens, a spokesman for Ducks Unlimited, said the Conservation Reserve Program has had huge benefits for wildlife and water quality. If farmers convert grassland back to crops, he said, "that's a death spiral for wildlife populations."

According to the Washington Post, the environmental groups say the lands in question are "too marginal for crop production to have a significant impact on the supplies and prices of food crops," anyway.

Really? But if farmers wouldn't be able to produce substantial crops on these supposedly "marginal" lands ... why are taxpayers paying them $1.8 billion per year -- that's billion with a "b" -- to keep them out of production? The Agriculture Department might as well pay Wal-Mart not to grow soybeans in their parking lots.

Shh ... better not give them any more ideas.

Share & Save

Leave Your Comment	10 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. Calviln Boyd Leman wrote on September 07, 2009 09:50 AM: Marginal land can grow Sweet Sorgum, for an energy crop now. And crops like Switch Grass and Miscanthus giganteus for when cellulosic ethanol or other fuel is competitive with fossil fuel. All these alternative crops will grow on dry, non-fertile land. We don't need to use the land along the streams. john mccall wrote on June 13, 2009 08:43 AM: Cars just need to be made more fuel efficient, more money should be allowed for water-powered engine research, etc. Food should be raised for starving people. The policy of giving away food to hungry people in America and elsewhere could have the money formerly used for farm subsidies added to it. This way more aid could be provided for the same money. It is obvious that there will be an increase of starving people in the future (population versus food curve). It is wrong to pay people not to raise corn, wheat, chickens, or anything else when people are starving to death. It seems obvious... Unless you're the one who's getting the free money or are getting money from the people that you got free money snackler wrote on July 14, 2008 09:16 PM: If you guys actually spent some time on the farm, you wouldn't be writing this stuff. I live in farm country and I gurantee you, I don't see farmers in pinstripe suits being driven around in a limo. More like bib overalls and riding a John Deere plowing a field. Just like Vegas, they are on the job 24/7. Look at how many farmers were wiped out in the floods. Some farmers missed the major flooding, but were wiped out in a matter of hours after a huge downpour. Apple farmers out east had hail damage to their crops and the whole season is shot. A few years ago the drought in South Dakota was so bad that the farmers claimed it would take at least 3 normal years for the land to recover. Over the years in my area the whole corn crops have been wiped out because an early freeze killed the corn. Most farmers will tell you that in a good year they make some pretty good dough, but sooner or later mother nauture takes it all back and then some. Where do you think this country would be if all those farmers packed it in after getting wiped out? Most first world nations subsidise their farmers so that we do not go hungry. Before you bag the farmers know this: American farmers are the most productive in the world. Just because there are programs to assist farmers does not stop them from busting their butts to put food on our table. If farming is so lucrative, the worlds richest people must be farmers. Not. timinator wrote on July 14, 2008 05:41 PM: In my county, the turkey farmers can't afford the feed (corn, primarily) or the gasoline, so they were going to lay off 600 workers. Now, the state is considering subsidizing the operation for the next 6 months to save the jobs (and unemployment payments). The absurdity of unintended consequences (or are they?) never end. This has all become just another of the million examples of the nationwide Universal Legal Plunder that we've come to accept as normal. Please read Frederich Bastiat's "The Law" for an excellent overview of our current mess. http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html eric wrote on July 14, 2008 05:14 PM: I thought that government paying people not to produce and punishing or taxing those that do produce, was up there with apple pie and political corruption. It's the american way. And they are not hippocrits. The less they do for us the more they want to charge us by raising taxes. Aldo Leooild wrote on July 14, 2008 03:25 PM: I hope the opinion-writer was not serious when s/he asked why these lands should be protected if we have to pay farmers not to plant them. Read the history of the Dust Bowl, from which these programs sprang. Yes, farmers would get one, maybe two crops from these lands before they started washing and/or blowing away. Remember the photos of the dust clouds over D.C.? That's good old prairie soil, after having been plowed. The ultimate subsidy is not having these farmers pay back all the subsidies if they're allowed to plow - the taxpayers get to pay twice to transport soil away from where it belongs - that's the true insanity of this proposal. TimeRanger wrote on July 14, 2008 01:20 PM: Want to see what your friends and neighbors are getting paid? http://farm.ewg.org/farm/ douglas wrote on July 14, 2008 08:45 AM: seems to me i read that due to the weather events and moreso, to the mandatory ethanol boondoggle, the u.s. may be importing various grains. that ethanol brainstorm [spasm ?] begets higher consumer fuel cost, poorer mpg, smaller corn flakes boxes, and third world country food riots. when are the politicians going to stop being "experts" in all fields of endeavor ? ignorance might be excusable but intentionally inflicting their personal political agenda is beneath contempt. farmer wrote on July 14, 2008 07:49 AM: you have no idea what your talking about...have you ever even seen a farm before? If it'll feed to hungry, why not? seriously? Joel Rossetti wrote on July 14, 2008 06:27 AM: Don't grow soy beans. Alfalfa can get you $175.oo per ton and still get your money from Uncle Sam.