You are hereBlogs / David Sayers's blog / Rural Issues
Rural Issues
In an effort to focus more on issues, I wanted to take the opportunity to take a look at the stances of both candidates and how they support/or don't support Rural Issues and voters. When Rural voters look at this, I find it amazing that Obama is not leading in the country.
Supporting Family-Owned Farms:
Obama:
1) Supported 2008 Farm Bill, supported reversing cuts to the Ag Dept. in 2006, and supported fully funding the programs authorized by the 2002 Farm Bill.
2) Supported Emergency Farm Relief Act of 2006 for disaster assistance.
3) Has received awards and endorsements from major agricultural groups (National Farmers Union Golden Triangle Award, endorsed by American Corn Growers Association).
McCain:
1) Opposed the 2008 Farm Bill and said he would have vetoed it if he were President.
2) Has a record of opposing programs to help farmers and ranchers.
3) Opposes all agricultural subsides (and fellow Republican Senator Grassley called his view "extreme."
4) Repeatedly opposed disaster assistance for farmers and ranchers.
Increasing Access to Rural Health Care:
Obama:
1) Pledged to increase access to healthcare in rural areas.
2) Obama's health care plan will lower costs.
McCain:
1) His plan would tax health benefits for all workers, increasing taxes by an estimated $3.6 trillion.
2) His plan will do nothing to increase the availability of health insurance for the uninsured.
3) Voted against decreasing Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy in order to increase rural health care and admitted his rural health plan "doesn't sound too serious."
Preventing Corporate Consolidation of Farms:
Obama:
1) Supported capping subsides for megafarms and is a longtime advocate for family farms.
McCain:
1) Repeatedly opposed policies that would have allowed family farms to stay in business.
Standing Up For Rural America:
Obama:
1) Supported programs for diverse economic development programs for rural America.
McCain:
1) Opposed millions in energy grants and loans for agriculture and rural small business.
Renewable Energy:
Obama:
1) Strong supporter of biofuels and alternative energy, and of creating rural jobs in creating this energy.
2) Supported investments in renewable energy and establishing the Renewable Fuel Standard.
3) Supported extending the Renewable Energy Production Credit.
4) Long record of support for advanced biofuels.
McCain:
1) Repeatedly voted against renewable fuel mandates and said ethanol has "absolutely no value whatsoever."
2) Opposed legislation that included and extension of the Renewable Energy Production Credit.
3) McCain's energy plan includes no biofuels.
Country of Origin Labeling:
Obama:
1) Supports country of origin labeling requirements.
McCain:
1) Repeatedly voted against country of origin labeling.
Now, before we get into an Ethanol debate, I personally do not see it as a destination, but rather, a go between to the next generation of fuels. And to just clear up one common misconception on the Farm Bill, over 2/3 of the money funds food stamp and nutrition programs, which also help cities.
I just wanted to give everyone some food for thought on issues.
- David Sayers's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Great blog, David! These are issues that impact a huge part of our nation.
I hope Maggie reads this and responds. This is an issue near and dear to her heart.
Thanks, Suzi. It took a while to get the research done and put it together, but it is a hot issue to me. Growing up on a small family farm, my dream is still to have a small veggie farm someday. I just don't want to see Washington steal that possibility away in favor of the big corporate farms that can afford lobbyists.
______________________
RFO Outreach Coordinator
The enemy of "the best" is not "the worst." The enemy of "the best" is "good enough."
I hope you get to fulfill that dream David. I always wanted to have a small place in the country and have a veggie garden and chickens. Yes, chickens. I've always wanted chickens. lol I'm getting to too old to do all that by myself now tho, I guess. OH well......
The big guys are taking away all of the mom and pop enterprises. From small farms to the corner drug store. It's so sad to the the huge lobbyist backed guys come in and ruin it all.
Hey, don't forget to submit your blog so I can digg it.
Great post! And thank you for getting us focused back to the reasons we're here -- to discuss our reasons for believing Obama & Biden are the best candidates for leading our country.
I find it odd that you think supporting subisidies is okay but corporate welfare is not? Supporting ethanol to the detriment of the world cord production but will not drop the tariifs on sugar cane that is cheaper and cleaner?
Interestingly enough roughly have of all corporate welfare goes to agriculture ~47 billion dollars.
Exactly where does the federal gov't role end and the states with rural communities responsbility begin?
Considering that agriculture is the backbone of any complex society, I think 47 billion is really a very small investment. Especially when hundreds of billions of dollars are being poured into the financial markets as we speak, the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on the military, and the fact that the corporate tax code in its current form has caused federal revenue as a percentage of the government's total revenue from corporations to be at its lowest level in decades.
I think the amount should be increased through more research and development grants to improve alternative fuels, crop yields, soil preservation etc.... World populations and food shortages are critical issues that need to be addressed.
Then why is Obama opposed to open doors in trading under CAFTA that would open markets to our farmers?
Also funny how corporate welfare is bad unless it is agricultural.
that's better than paying farmers to NOT grow crops?
that statement makes no sense
Jill, yes, farmers can set aside a small portion of their land as CRP land, but there are so many rules with that and it ties up the land for many years. It actually isn't quite that simple, though. On the surface, I agree, it does sounds stupid. But, there really is some logic behind it.
The CRP program has two main goals:
1) The main one is wildlife/ecosystem conservation. Before this program, in order to make as much profit as possible (like any other business), they would plow up every inch of their land that they could in order to maximize their crops. However, this led to erosion problems and a lack of sustainable areas for wildlife which would impact the ecosystem as a whole.
2) The other goal of this program is to reduce the possibility of the "dust bowl" that we had years ago due to the lack of vegetaion/trees.
No program is perfect, but that is the goal of the CRP. And it is a small portion of Ag outlays. Last number I saw was about $2 billion per year. I don't want to give the impression that this is free ride money, either. A farmer can make much more money growing crops on an acre than setting it aside as CRP land. The payment for CRP land is roughly equivalent to what they farmer would have received if he had rented it out, which around my neck of the woods is about $150/acre per year.
______________________
RFO Outreach Coordinator
The enemy of "the best" is not "the worst." The enemy of "the best" is "good enough."
Are we blogging about the same subject? What does some farmers reducing crop production have to do with trade policy? When did I even mention the subsidies that allow farmers to not grow crops when I was talking about investing in research and development to increase crops yields while extending soil life? In addition, if it takes a subsidy to keep families on the farm and keeps the intrinsic wealth the land provides to family farmers in their hands all the better in my opinion.
There are plenty of markets for farmers that are open with our without so called "free" trade, which is not actually free at all. Last I checked American grocery stores are full. Food production in America can actually be cut and Americans will still be able to get their KFC no problem. Subsidies and farmers not growing crops have nothing to do with it. If subsidies are causing some farmers to reduce crop production no big deal to me. This just helps America preserve soil quality for future generations.
Like I said the issue is world population and food shortages in third world countries. Some fields lying fallow because of subsidies have nothing to do with this issue. Plenty of food is being produced right now with or without these crops for Americans and a so called free trade agreement with countries that have very little to offer America in return has nothing to do with the issue I wrote about either.
Addressing world population growth and food shortages in third world countries is in America's interest for national security purposes. Many will argue a humanitarian need. Which I also think is valid but really, the bottom line is famine and the diseases caused by food shortages and people willing to take desperate measures to feed themselves is the issue.
I also thought it was rich that you want to cut farm subsidies because oh my god all of 47 billion dollars is being spent when trillions of dollars is being wasted on the industrial military complex, corporate tax breaks, and wall street bail outs.
Why do you hate American famers so much?
With out them your corporation does not exist. You should be thanking them and saying what a great investment. It only takes 47 billion dollars to reap all the benefits farmers provide while preserving the land for future generations and protects the wealth of family farmers.
fiscal - I was making light of everyone complaining about corporate welfare. Maybe if you bothered to check you would see that a vast amount of this money goes to extremely large wealthy farmers and/or corporations.
Have you researched CAFTA? Doesn't sound like it. If you had then you would know that it opens up Central America to our goods/services and eliminates those levied duties on our products entering this region. Currently CAFTA products enter the US market fairly duty free. Beginning to wonder why you call yourself a fiscal conservative b/c with your tirade you are sounding like a liberal fanatic (see your comment re: 'why do you hate farmers")
"Most farmers don’t receive direct subsidies from the federal government. The taxpayer-financed handouts go to only about one-third of the nation’s farmers and ranchers. So where does all the taxpayer money spent on farmers actually go? Mainly to large corporate agribusinesses and the richest farmers. In 2005, the most recent year for which comprehensive statistics are available, the richest 10 percent of all subsidy recipients received 66 percent of all subsidies." corporate welfare
A liberal fanatic's tirade is as far from truth about fiscal as you can get. Maybe if you stopped thinking you were the only one who bothers to look things up, you would be willing to at least listen with an open mind. But you see all things economic in one light. Are you an economist, or just one who takes a strong interest?
You know the joke about economists don't you? If you put 7 of them in one room to solve a economic problem, they would come up with a minimum of 8 different answers. ;-) My point is, there are many varying views on what is best for our economy. Yours isn't the only one that has any chance of being correct.
Beginning to wonder why you call yourself a fiscal conservative b/c with your tirade you are sounding like a liberal fanatic (see your comment re: 'why do you hate farmers")
I stand by that statement.
"Why do you hate American famers so much? " Does nothing to further the discussion.
I have not stated my view is the only one that is correct but fiscal has not provided any relevant information to my post. I have come to expect better arguments from fiscal.
That post was entirely beneath him/her.
Thanks for sticking up for me suzi. : )
Jill sorry for the hyperbole I knew it was way over the top when I wrote it and I will try to refrain from such rhetoric in the future.
Understand though that this is the second time I have seen you post a comment about 47 billion dollars for farmers.
"Interestingly enough roughly have of all corporate welfare goes to agriculture ~47 billion dollars."
"Exactly where does the federal gov't role end and the states with rural communities responsbility begin?"
I did not respond the first time you posted something like this but when I see it repeated I roll my eyes because you always fail post anything that I have seen thus far about government backed abuses that are so much larger than this like corporate welfare.
As to free trade agreements like CAFTA I have researched it and other free trade agreements and free has nothing to do with it. I do not know why Americans keep falling for this corporate swindle. Foreign nations continue to protect their markets regardless of the free trade agreement through currency manipulation, vat taxes, nationalism, wage suppression, and price control. Before you push the free trade corporate rhetoric maybe you should really do your research first.
I did not respond the first time you posted something like this but when I see it repeated I roll my eyes because you always fail post anything that I have seen thus far about government backed abuses that are so much larger than this like corporate welfare.
Did you read the link? Corporate welfare was deemed to be roughly 90 some odd billion in 2006 - approx 1/2 of which went to agribusiness of which a majority did not go to the small family farmers only large corporations and large scale wealthy farmers. So I am wondering what your point is with this sentence as I do not see how this money is helping your average American farmer.
As to free trade agreements like CAFTA I have researched it and other free trade agreements and free has nothing to do with it. I do not know why Americans keep falling for this corporate swindle.
I didn't state other FTA only CAFTA which would open markets for farmers. How is this corporate swindle and how would it not be good for farmers? You are making assertions with no basis. Would be happy to review how CAFTA hurts farmers - why is opening up new markets for our products bade (not other agreements CAFTA)?
Until you can post some thoughtful discussion related to these assertions I will continue to think you do not know what you are talking about because obviously you didn't bother read anything I posted only what you wanted to read.
I guess I define corporate welfare much more broadly than you do. 90 billion is a pittance compare to the government-sponsored slush thrown at corporations. Here is one example of what I call a corporate subsidy. No bid government contracts. Since regulation is a hot topic these days, how about corporations that gets such complex and stringent regulation passed that it kills any possibility of competition. I call that a subsidy to. The reverse works for them just as well. A corporation does not care one way or the other they will work the system to their advantage.
As to CAFTA you are missing my point. It does not matter what the trade agreement says. Either it will be ignored by South American nations or corporate vultures from America will be allowed to swoop in to pillage their resources and little if any this newfound wealth will be seen by the majority of Americans or South American citizens.
Funny thing about CAFTA is that it passed the House of Reps. with only a 217-215 vote. Hardly a ringing endorsement. I think this is fallout from the debacle that is NAFTA.
I don't disagree with you on the question about the difference between Corporate Welfare and Agricultural Welfare when it comes to the megafarms. But that is one of the issues Senator Obama seems to hold a pragmatic view:
From David's original post:"Supported capping subsides for megafarms and is a longtime advocate for family farms. "
David,
Thank you for the work. I wish I could get this info on the hands of Rural Pennsylvanians.
~O2
One of the problems I see with Obama and the rural vote is that they dismiss him out of hand before knowing his policies. Farming is a huge issue in Illinois and Obama knows the issues well. This is one reason Iowa went for him. He spoke their language.
I wish farmers in other states would really take a close look at his policies. They would be very surprised at how good they are for the American farmer as well as for small town America. A great thing about Obama is he gives it his best effort. I see him on the stump in rural areas explaining his positions and how he can help them. I hope that word is spreading.
Actually, i think we're much closer to becoming a fascist state, though it could also become totalitarian like most communist countries were.
Actually, if we--or the banks for that matter--had gone about it the other, and offered to refinance the risky mortgages with affordable interest rates, this whole wall street bailout could have been avoided. (The so called housing bubble only became a "bubble" after the fore closers--not all, by any means, due to predatory lending--left a larger number of houses on the market than could be sold or even rented due to the large un[and under]employment in our society.) But this would be too socialistic, even if it would have cost a lot less in the long run.