When my children were young, they would start writing their Christmas list right after Halloween. By the time December rolled around, the lists got pretty long. I would usually ask them to prioritize the list by putting the things they “really really” wanted at the top.

Farm groups are doing the same thing right now. They are asking their members to prioritize what they “really” want in the next farm bill. Unlike my children’s Christmas lists, however, farmers are not being asked what new things they want but rather what current government programs they are willing to give up in order to save what they really need.

Now that the August recess is finished, lawmakers will return to Washington and all eyes will be on the Super Committee. The “super committee” is charged with coming up with plans to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion or more during the next decade. The committee has until Nov. 23 to devise a plan to present to Congress.

The plan the committee comes up with will determine, in large part, what the next farm bill will look like. As a result, the scramble is on by the farm lobby to keep their sacred cows from being slaughtered.

To continue my livestock analogy, it looks like the sacrificial lamb is going to be direct payments. Long a target of anti-farm forces, direct payments will be impossible to defend in light of high commodity prices, soaring land prices and record farm incomes. High on the Midwest farmers’ priority list are crop insurance, research funding and conservation. These are at the core of the current farm economy and represent the building blocks of the future food production system.

Eighty percent of the USDA budget will get a pass when it comes to spending cuts. This is because this funds food stamps and nutrition entitlement programs. Even the tea party lawmakers will find it hard to take a tough stand on cutting these programs in an election year with a bad economy. Another area that may escape deep cuts is homeland security. Ever since the attack on 9/11 the attitude has been security at any cost; and, oh brother, have there been costs.

A recent investigation, by of all folks, the Los Angeles Times revealed “that the ‘any cost’ rationale has resulted in unnecessary and eccentric responses to the possibility of a terrorist act. Congress should block such projects in the future.”
The investigation revealed millions of federal dollars spent on programs of questionable value or benefit. Even Time magazine criticized the way funds have been spent on homeland security, “Imagine if you maintained your car the way we fund national security: you’d spend $1,000 a year on tires, for example, but only $200 on gasoline, brakes and spark plugs.”

Are we in danger of taking the same kind of an approach to farm program spending?

The real danger is that none of the people who will make the key decisions about what kind of policy agriculture needs have ever farmed and were not elected by farmers. It will take a strong and unified voice to cut through the clutter and make the point that funding certain farm programs is vital. The key will be to use concepts that they understand.

Jobs, food prices, fuel prices, and the environment are concepts lawmakers understand, and all of these areas would be positively or negatively impacted by farm programs. Another message the farm lobby needs to articulate is that cutting government regulations – especially on agriculture – would lower food costs, lower fuel costs, and reduce federal spending. Another point that should be made is that funding that promotes renewable and domestic sources of fuel is one of the best and most effective homeland security projects possible.
While it may seem like a long time until Christmas, in the next few weeks decisions will be made in Washington that will determine just what is in that big bag of government goodies that will be delivered to Congress in December. It is time for agriculture to come to an agreement on future farm policy and make its case now.

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 Gary Truitt may write to him in care of this publication.