Charlie wrote:

Be sure and read Sen. Grassley's article in Sunday's
des Moines register in which he states that Iowa gets
more money from commodity programs than conservation
programs and thus increasing the percentage of the
farm bill that goes to conservation without increasing
the budget for the total farm bill "hurts Iowa". This
is going to be a big problem in getting his support.

Debbie's comments:

The commodity program is only for certain crops, in
Iowa its corn and soybeans.  This is fact is at the heart
of what is bad about the commodity programs and points
out the beauty of  Harkin's Conservation Security Act
(CSA) . Corn and soybeans are not intrinsically bad crops
but the overproduction of them is. If farmers chose to
plant them only because of the commodity program
benefits then that leads to both an environmentally
and economically unattainable system. The farmer is on
a type of welfare. CSA does not give benefits because
of the type of  crop grown but based on the system used
to grow the food. I would hope that most people would
want a sustainable system and not a welfare system.
Senator Grassley thinks that Iowa would get less
is because he assumes that the farmers that plant corn
and soybeans want to. I am sure most do, but; I know
that some do not. Senator Grassley assumes that the
farming midwestern states have the political clout to
keep the status quo and keep the money flowing.
He is probably right, but; the Ag  community has
always had to adapt to the political  desires of the
urban centers.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]