|
|
|
|
|
|
| Obama understands rural America |
|
|
|
I have had the genuine privilege of serving the people of Ohio and the United States in various positions over the years – as Assistant Secretary of USDA, Chairman of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, and in the Ohio State House for 16 years. In each of these positions, I have had the task of communicating the realities of rural Ohio to people who sometimes did not understand the special circumstances of rural communities and agriculture.
Without some understanding of how critical that basic infrastructure is to rural communities, or how farmers need tools to manage the inherent risks of agriculture, people who do not understand rural America can make decisions that simply do not make sense. With this in mind, I urge people to consider the records and the positions of our presidential candidates this year. Barack Obama is a senator from Illinois, a state in the heart of the Corn Belt with a substantial livestock sector. Obama traveled Central and Southern Ohio to learn how to best represent this agricultural state. He learned well.
For example, Sen. Obama understands the critical nature of rural investment, renewable energy, and risk management when he voiced strong support for the Farm Bill passed this spring. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reported that Sen. McCain would have vetoed the farm bill that included unprecedented investments in biofuels, conservation, and disaster assistance.
Sen. McCain reinforced his position in a recent statement in Wisconsin where he said that “I don’t support agricultural subsidies no matter where they are.”
Pretty much everyone agrees that there are parts of agricultural policy that need to be reformed.
But to say that all federal support for agriculture is unwarranted reflects a deep misunderstanding of rural America and agriculture.
At any rate, Sen. McCain has been consistent on his stance on rural policy. Just as Sen. Obama has been consistent in his support of a strong rural policy.
In 2005, in an effort to take money away from rural America, some in Congress attempted to strip funding that had been provided in the 2002 Farm Bill. Sen. McCain was part of this effort to defund farm bill programs; Sen. Obama was part of the effort to retain farm bill funding.
On energy policy, the distinction again is very clear. In particular on biofuels, Sen. Obama has been a consistent supporter of investments in a domestic renewable energy industry so the United States can decrease its dependency on foreign oil.
Sen. Obama understands that this policy not only is in the interest of national security, it also provides economic opportunities for farmers and rural communities.
McCain, however, has been Congress’ most constant and vocal critic of support for the renewable energy industry, reflected in his votes against tax incentives, the renewable fuel standard, and wind energy tax credits.
In other energy issues, Sen. Obama voted to extend tax credits to support the growth of the wind industry. Sen. McCain voted against the extension. Sen. Obama voted to support energy tax credits for farmers by taking away some of the tax advantages enjoyed by oil companies. McCain voted against this measure.
Obama has made as his campaign centerpiece a “man-to-the-moon” commitment of reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil by pledging to invest $150 billion over the next 10 years to spur development in alternative energy. This will mean not only moving away from our dependence on foreign oil, it will also mean jobs in the new alternative energy industry that will look to clean coal, biofuels, wind and solar for our energy future.
Barack Obama understands rural America and has a record and a plan that shows he understands how important sensible policy is to people in rural communities. In all my years, I do not think we have ever been part of such an important election. I urge you to compare the records and positions of these two candidates as you consider your vote in November.
Gene Branstool
Utica, Ohio |
| 10/22/2008 |
|
|
