Post by Hank Goodwin on Dec 22, 2005 22:14:26 GMT -5
Goodwin Addresses Farmers, Has Harsh Words for "Smart Farming Act"
Wichita Eagle
Representative Hank Goodwin spoke to a gathering of Kansas farmers last night, addressing their concerns about the Smart Farming Act currently under debate in the United States Senate. In a meeting characterized by anger, Goodwin echoed the concerns expressed by the farmers and promised to make sure that the bill did not make it through the House of Representatives in its current form.
"The American farmer relies on the stability provided by federal agricultural subsidies to produce a supply of low cost food for both the U.S. and the world population," He said. "These subsidies protect farmers from the drastic fluctuations in commodity prices that can force them out of business, thus protecting consumers from the steep climb in prices from the resulting drops in crop inventories. They therefore protect consumers from high prices and farmers from low prices and bankruptcy."
Goodwin made it clear that he did not reject the whole bill. "Advancing farm conservation and supporting the application of newer, better agricultural technologies and practices is one that all farmers can clearly get behind," He told the assembled crowd. "But simply abolishing subsidies at the same time is incredibly irresponsible. This bill, in its current form, would abruptly destroy the foundation of the last century of American farming. We cannot afford to take such a risk with an industry that provides employment, directly or indirectly, to tens of millions of Americans and that is the source of the very food that we eat."
The crowd of Kansas farmers was highly sympathetic towards Goodwin's message and reflect great anger towards this legislation. Jake Simmons, a farmer from Cowley County, said, "Taking away subsidies will bakrupt us. They're going to destroy our livelihood, these lawyers and billionairs who never stepped foot on a farm and now want to tell us what 'smart farming' is. The Senate and the President seem to care more about helping Mexicans find jobs than they do about protecting the jobs of American farmers."
Other farmers were critical of the idea that efficient and profitable farms could survive without subsidies. "It's the only profitability in the system," said Kingman County grain farmer Steve Dalton. "I'm no agribusiness. I'm farming the same land my grandfather farmed, and my government allowance accounted for 80% of my total profits from last year. And that was a good year for me. On the bad years, the allowance is my invome. Without it, I would not have my farm right now. "
Much of the rage of the farmers in attendence was directed specifically at President Warder, who had been a vocal proponent of ending these subsidies. "I love it when some lawyer tells me what is good for my farm," Dalton said. "It's easy to go on and on about self-sufficiency and free trade when you live in a multi-million dollar Beverly Hills home with a butler. When you are barely clearing 15 dollars an acre and you have half a dozen loans out that you can't pay if you suffer even a minor setback those subsidies are the only thing keeping you alive."
President Warder has already promised to veto any measure intended to maintain these subsidies, because, in his words, "The small farmer does not benefit from our current Rural Investment Act." Most of the farmers at the meeting appeared to agree with Warder on that measure.
"We want subsidies reformed," Gary Whitton said. "We want more money going to the little guy, who can't compete with the volume and efficiency of the big producers. But Warder isn't interested in reform. He just wants to end subsidies all together because of his radical free trade policies. Small farmers count on those subsidies in their yearly budgeting and dealings with banks. To just end them suddenly would destroy all of that, and he's only replacing it with a new and complicated plan that not only has far less funding but will also take most farmers years to understand. And by then most of the small farms will have been swallowed up by the big guys who have the capability to absord these losses."
Goodwin also agreed that reform would be a good thing. "I have already begun speaking with members of the Republican caucus and Democrats representing agricultural districts on how we can best reform the system," He said. "I hoped that we could have such discussions with the President as well, but apparently he does not even want to talk, just to threaten."
Wichita Eagle
Representative Hank Goodwin spoke to a gathering of Kansas farmers last night, addressing their concerns about the Smart Farming Act currently under debate in the United States Senate. In a meeting characterized by anger, Goodwin echoed the concerns expressed by the farmers and promised to make sure that the bill did not make it through the House of Representatives in its current form.
"The American farmer relies on the stability provided by federal agricultural subsidies to produce a supply of low cost food for both the U.S. and the world population," He said. "These subsidies protect farmers from the drastic fluctuations in commodity prices that can force them out of business, thus protecting consumers from the steep climb in prices from the resulting drops in crop inventories. They therefore protect consumers from high prices and farmers from low prices and bankruptcy."
Goodwin made it clear that he did not reject the whole bill. "Advancing farm conservation and supporting the application of newer, better agricultural technologies and practices is one that all farmers can clearly get behind," He told the assembled crowd. "But simply abolishing subsidies at the same time is incredibly irresponsible. This bill, in its current form, would abruptly destroy the foundation of the last century of American farming. We cannot afford to take such a risk with an industry that provides employment, directly or indirectly, to tens of millions of Americans and that is the source of the very food that we eat."
The crowd of Kansas farmers was highly sympathetic towards Goodwin's message and reflect great anger towards this legislation. Jake Simmons, a farmer from Cowley County, said, "Taking away subsidies will bakrupt us. They're going to destroy our livelihood, these lawyers and billionairs who never stepped foot on a farm and now want to tell us what 'smart farming' is. The Senate and the President seem to care more about helping Mexicans find jobs than they do about protecting the jobs of American farmers."
Other farmers were critical of the idea that efficient and profitable farms could survive without subsidies. "It's the only profitability in the system," said Kingman County grain farmer Steve Dalton. "I'm no agribusiness. I'm farming the same land my grandfather farmed, and my government allowance accounted for 80% of my total profits from last year. And that was a good year for me. On the bad years, the allowance is my invome. Without it, I would not have my farm right now. "
Much of the rage of the farmers in attendence was directed specifically at President Warder, who had been a vocal proponent of ending these subsidies. "I love it when some lawyer tells me what is good for my farm," Dalton said. "It's easy to go on and on about self-sufficiency and free trade when you live in a multi-million dollar Beverly Hills home with a butler. When you are barely clearing 15 dollars an acre and you have half a dozen loans out that you can't pay if you suffer even a minor setback those subsidies are the only thing keeping you alive."
President Warder has already promised to veto any measure intended to maintain these subsidies, because, in his words, "The small farmer does not benefit from our current Rural Investment Act." Most of the farmers at the meeting appeared to agree with Warder on that measure.
"We want subsidies reformed," Gary Whitton said. "We want more money going to the little guy, who can't compete with the volume and efficiency of the big producers. But Warder isn't interested in reform. He just wants to end subsidies all together because of his radical free trade policies. Small farmers count on those subsidies in their yearly budgeting and dealings with banks. To just end them suddenly would destroy all of that, and he's only replacing it with a new and complicated plan that not only has far less funding but will also take most farmers years to understand. And by then most of the small farms will have been swallowed up by the big guys who have the capability to absord these losses."
Goodwin also agreed that reform would be a good thing. "I have already begun speaking with members of the Republican caucus and Democrats representing agricultural districts on how we can best reform the system," He said. "I hoped that we could have such discussions with the President as well, but apparently he does not even want to talk, just to threaten."