A Clear Choice
July 26, 2007 | Posted by Scott Faber in Uncategorized
This week, 348 members of the House of Representatives will have a clear choice:
- to vote for family farmers, taxpayers, hungry Americans, economic prosperity and the environment, or
- to vote for unlimited subsidies for large commercial farmers, to raise taxes, to deny food assistance to the hungry, to invite trade wars, and to turn away farmers offering to help the environment.
It's that simple. Because that's how many legislators would better serve their districts by voting for the Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment.
The choice could not be clearer.
The Farm Bill crafted by the House Agriculture Committee and mistakenly supported by some Democratic leaders would:
- perpeuate a farm subsidy system that allows the largest commercial farmers to collect two-thirds of all subsidies, driving their small neighbors out of business.
- help feed some hungry Americans but tax other Americans to pay the cost.
- expand subsidies that increase hunger in developing nations and that violate our trade agreements, inviting new trade barriers.
- provide little new funding to reward farmily farmers offering to share the cost of a healthier environment.
By contrast, the Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment to be offered by a group of House reformers and supported by business, religious, anti-hunger, environmental, anti-tax and health leaders would:
- provide a safety net that helps family farmers, not corporate farmers.
- provide $6 billion over five years to combat hunger — without taxing other Americans.
- Bring our farm subsidies into compliance with our trade obligations and reduce hunger overseas.
- Reward — not reject — farmers when they offer to share the cost of a healthier environment.
Legislators have a clear choice.
For most, a vote against the Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment will be a vote against their the family farmers, taxpayers, the hungry, and the environment.
2 Responses
Comment from Cheryl Hori
July 26th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
I completely agree. Farm subsidies were originally designed to help small mom and pop farms. now 80% of farm subsidies are going to large corporations including fortune 500 companies, celebrity farmers (ie Ted Turner) and even some memebers of Congress. Remember what Dante said "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Comment from Daniel Hanson
July 27th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
The damage of the current farm program is far greater than wasted tax dollars. The program is forcing all the producers to over produce at all costs. The payments that even the smaller procducers need to make a living are based on Maximum Yeilds. This means that Farmers big and Small are rewarded for sacraficing soil health for maximum yeild. I am refering to the damage caused by the excessive use of commercial fertilizer that contains large amounts of Hydrogen. The cheapest source for Nitrogen is Anhydrous Amonia or NH3. Producers have put tons and tons of this product on the soil anually to recieve the maximum yeild. This causes a dramatic change in soil PH and the overal health of the soils. It kills soil microbes and even causes Aluminum to become plant available. Not to good for anybody if you keep up with the medical studies. In the Pacific Northwest we are currently in the mid to upper 4s in soil ph and dropping fast. We will hit the wall and the soil will not produce. One only needs to look at Brazil to see the efects of adding Hydrogen the soil. Thousands of acres of rain forests in the 3.5s that will not grow anything. Farm policy should support sustainable farming practices like crop rotation and green manure crops that build the soil not destroy it for maximum wheat yield. The costs for repairing damaged soils will be astronomical. And yes it will be necesary as we already know that cheap imported food is not always safe and will not always be available.
Leave a Reply
User comments reflect the opinions of the responsible contributor only, and do not reflect the viewpoint of Environmental Defense Fund. We reserve the right to delete comments that may be considered offensive, illegal or inappropriate. We also reserve the right to delete duplicate comments, or comments that have no relationship to the original post.