I asked the question once before regarding USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, “just how long (can) a President from Illinois … tolerate a Secretary who really doesn’t seem to like farmers all that much?”
When posing that query this June, I discussed the Secretary’s implication that those of us involved in “production agriculture” should more or less pipe down about the Administration’s love affair with “sustainable agriculture.”

Recently Vilsack stepped in it again, this time asserting that “agriculture no longer drives the rural economy,” because “only 9 percent of all farm family’s incomes comes from farming.” The Secretary, using disingenuous statistics, once again threw farm families under the bus to promote his rural development agenda.
Speaking at a Brookings Institute confab on Advancing the Next Economy, the Secretary advocated what he called “regional” efforts on rural development, noting that USDA is piloting some programming that places higher emphasis on regional cooperation in rural development funding.

These efforts may or may not be laudable, but they miss the larger point: Vilsack continues to downplay the USDA’s central role: To regulate, promote and advance the business, science and industry of agriculture including food, fiber and natural resources. Claiming that less than 9 percent of the income earned by rural families comes from farming is like saying that less than 9 percent of the income earned by rural families comes from selling life insurance: It may be true, but it’s not a useful indicator of the relative importance of the profession.

By citing all rural families who have at least $1,000 earned or spent in an agricultural endeavor, the Secretary includes everyone with, as one fellow farm broadcaster put it, “two acres and two horses.” Indeed, the Secretary continues to purposefully use the totality of the rural population to demonstrate his belief that farmers are largely irrelevant in winning votes for his party this election cycle.
By gearing the efforts of USDA toward “rural development” and “sustainable agriculture” - as evidenced by programs like Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food, Vilsack panders to the masses at the expense of the food producing backbone of our nation.

A cursory examination of press releases from the Department shows the focus of late has been on doling out funding for rural development, rural broadband, food and nutrition programs or rural energy, all programs outside of the traditional scope of the commodity or conservation titles of the Farm Bill.

In a state like Ohio where I’ve lived all my life, statements as blatantly ignorant as “farming no longer drives the rural economy” seem particularly out of touch. Ohio’s largest industry is, was, and will be agriculture. While farming itself is but one part of our diverse and robust agriculture community, the entire scope of food production and processing in the Buckeye State employs one of every six or seven Ohioans. Think that isn’t “driving” the rural economy there?

While some speculated Vilsack’s involvement in the Shirley Sherrod debacle would be the end of his tenure, the President stood by the former Iowa Governor. For my part, I suspect that’s because the White House pulled the pin on the Sherrod firing, not Vilsack himself.

This latest gaffe, however, has folks again pondering Vilsack’s future. The Secretary has his share of critics on Capitol Hill, including several members of the Agriculture Committees. It remains unclear how much appetite exists within the Administration to push the Secretary out of his current role, and the midterm elections are certainly of more pressing importance for the ruling class in Washington. Even so, I renew my question of how long the rural America, or the President, can afford to tolerate an anti-agriculture boss at USDA.

This Secretary, unlike his most recent predecessors, missed the memo completely that his No. 1 job is advancing agriculture in America. Instead, he’s spent two years convincing America that farmers don’t really matter all that much any more.
Hope and change? Let’s hope some change is coming to USDA sooner rather than later.

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of Farm World. Readers with questions or comments for Andy Vance may write to him in care of this publication.