President's budget boosts nutrition, while trimming farm subsidies

by Jay Sjerven
Share This:

WASHINGTON — The fiscal 2010 budget for agriculture outlined by President Barack Obama on Feb. 26 gives a boost to nutrition and rural development programs managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture while it trims certain farm subsidies and programs. The emphasis on nutrition programs seemed to have solid support in the Congress given the state of the economy, but the president’s proposal to reduce farm payments to more wealthy producers generated mixed reviews from both Republicans and Democrats.

The budget would provide a $1 billion annual increase for child nutrition program reforms aimed at improving access, enhancing the nutritional quality of school lunch and breakfasts, expanding nutrition research and evaluation and improving program oversight. Funding also was proposed to support more than 9.8 million participants in the Women, Infants and Children program.

The budget supports the temporary increase in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and additional resources for food banks and community-based food providers as provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and it funds a pilot initiative to increase SNAP participation among low-income seniors.

The budget provides $250 million in loans and grants to increase the national supply of home-grown renewable fuels, and five rural development programs would receive $61 million in funding. These programs include the rural micro-entrepreneur program, rural cooperative development grants, value-added producer grants, grants to minority producers and cooperative research agreements.

The administration said it would fund several conservation programs, including the Conservation Stewardship Program, the Conservation Reserve Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, but it called for the elimination of the Resource Conservation and Development Program, a 47-year-old program the administration asserted already accomplished its goals.

The budget provides additional resources to improve food safety inspections and assessment and the ability to determine food safety risks.

The president also proposed offsets to his increased spending in priority areas.

The budget would phase out over three years direct payments made to producers whose sales revenues exceed $500,000 a year. Under the current farm law, a person or legal entity with adjusted farm gross income of more than $750,000, averaged over the preceding three years, is not eligible to receive direct payments.

The budget summary stated, "Presently, direct payments are made to even large producers, regardless of crop prices, losses or whether the land is still under production. The program was introduced in the 1996 farm bill as a temporary payment scheduled to expire, but was included in the 2002 and 2008 farm bills."

The summary added, "Large farmers are well positioned to replace those payments with alternate sources of income from emerging markets for environmental services, such as carbon sequestration, renewable energy production, and providing clean air, clean water and wildlife habitat. U.S.D.A. will increase its research and analytical capabilities and conduct government-wide coordination activities to encourage the establishment of markets for these ecosystem services."

The president’s budget also "supports the implementation of a $250,000 commodity program payment limit, which will help ensure that payments are made only to those that most need them."

The budget calls for reducing crop insurance premium subsidies, the elimination of cotton storage credits and a 20% reduction in funding for the Market Access Program. With regard to the latter program, the budget summary stated, "The budget reforms MAP by reducing program funding for overseas brand promotion and minimizes the benefits that large for-profit entities indirectly gain as members of trade associations who also participate in MAP." The administration proposed future federal spending on MAP emphasize the promotion of "generic American products overseas."

Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, said, "President Obama’s budget outline recognizes that in these trying economic times, we need every federal dollar to go where it can do the most good. In scrubbing the budget, he has focused on reforming large commodity program payments and the direct freedom-to-farm payments. I welcome his engagement on both of these issues, where I have long sought further reforms."

Mr. Harkin also supported proposal for increased nutrition funding but said the elimination of funding for resources conservation and development programs was not a good idea "because they accomplish valuable work in rural communities across Iowa and the nation."

Representative Ron Kind of Wisconsin, who led efforts to reduce farm subsidies during the farm bill debate, said, "I am encouraged that President Obama has held true to his pledge to root out waste in agriculture programs. These commonsense reforms will reduce taxpayer subsidies to large agribusinesses and wealthy individuals while still maintaining a vital safety net for farmers during these tough economic times."

Senator John Thune of South Dakota, said, "I agree with President Obama that payment limitations could be tighter and supported legislation during the debate on the 2008 farm bill to do so. However, some of the savings claimed by this administration would come out of the pockets of the hard-working men and women of rural America, almost as though the economic times we are facing have had no impact on our agriculture industry."

Senator Chambliss, ranking member of the Senate agriculture committee, and Representative Collin Peterson of Minnesota, chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, expressed reservations about reopening the farm bill to make the farm subsidy adjustments sought by the president.

This article can also be found in the digital edition of Milling and Baking News, March 10, 2009, starting on Page 1. Click here to search that archive.

Comment on this Article
We welcome your thoughtful comments. Please comply with our Community rules.








The views expressed in the comments section of Baking Business News do not reflect those of Baking Business News or its parent company, Sosland Publishing Co., Kansas City, Mo. Concern regarding a specific comment may be registered with the Editor by clicking the Report Abuse link.