|
Another victim
of the Bush tax cuts and foolish myopia. KWC NYT Editorial:
November 22, 2003 Save
the Conservation Security Program
In the debacle of last year's farm bill, a few programs
emerged that had both common sense and innovation behind them. One that
actually made it into law was called the Conservation Security Program. It
would pay farmers to keep up conservation practices they have already adopted
and to add new ones as well. It was a way to support good farming practices in every region
and on farms of every size.
You didn't have to grow a commodity crop to qualify. It was, in short, a way
for Americans to help farmers take good care of America's land. When President
Bush signed the farm bill, he took the trouble to praise its conservation
provisions. But a lot has happened to the Conservation Security Program
since then. The Agriculture Department has yet to write the rules that would
put it into effect, even though they were required by law last February. The
White House has insisted that any emergency funds — for crop damage from
drought or floods — be paid out of the money set aside for the Conservation
Security Program, thereby cutting its financing nearly in half, to $3.77
billion over 10 years from $6.9 billion. Now, in the House's agricultural
appropriations bill, the $53 million set aside for this new program in next
year's budget has been wiped out entirely with a stroke of the appropriators'
pen. This is called "mandatory savings" — reducing funds for a
mandatory program. President Bush did not request this savings, though his tax cuts made it inevitable. It was the House's own idea to gut the
Conservation Security Program, which farmers, environmentalists and lawmakers
from both sides of the aisle have called one of the best farm programs in ages. To almost anyone who thinks seriously about agriculture, the House of
Representatives is the place where truly bad ideas are raised to the level of
doctrine. The
House seems to understand only one way to help out farmers: giving fat checks
to the biggest farmers for raising crops we have too much of anyway. When the
House and Senate meet in conference next week to resolve their differences, the
Senate should stand up for this program and restore its full financing, $53
million, for 2004. If we are ever going to find a new model for agricultural spending,
it will begin with smart, innovative and egalitarian programs like this one. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/22/opinion/22SAT3.html |
