By Jessica Domel
Multimedia Editor
The White House’s fiscal year 2018 budget blueprint has many in the farm and ranch community concerned. The proposal includes a 21 percent cut to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) discretionary spending.
“They’re talking about cutting the statistical capabilities of USDA,” Regan Beck, director of Government Affairs at Texas Farm Bureau (TFB), said. “That is a big concern because farmers and ranchers depend on that information to make decisions about planting, marketing and risk management.”
Without USDA’s statistics, farmers would essentially be “flying blind.”
“There’s tremendous risk in farming and ranching,” Beck said. “This is one of the tools to help understand that risk and that’s being taken away from them.”
If realized, that would also decrease funding for water programs and staffing at local Farm Service Agency (FSA) offices.
“The Farm Service Agency offices deliver the farm bill programs. If you do cut those positions, then it’s going to be hard to continue providing the services, and farm bill programs to farmers and ranchers,” Beck said.
The proposed budget allocates $17.9 billion in discretionary spending. That’s a decrease of $4.7 billion.
“On the USDA budget, I am concerned that the cuts, while relatively small in the context of the total federal budget, could hamper some vital work of the department,” Congressman Mike Conaway, House Agriculture Committee chair, said. “I think it is very important to remember that net farm income is down 50 percent from where it stood just four years ago. America’s farmers and ranchers are struggling, and we need to be extremely careful not to exacerbate these conditions. In fact, we need to do all we can to be there to help our farmers and ranchers. The work they do is critical. A well fed world is a safer world.”
Conaway said the proposal covers appropriations spending and mainly provides top line numbers. A comprehensive budget is due later this spring.
He said it’s important to note the Agriculture Committees put together a farm bill in 2014 that saved more than $100 billion. That’s four times the savings the committees pledged.
“Agriculture has done more than its fair share. As we in Congress get ready to write the budget, we will certainly pay close attention to the president’s recommendations, many of which I suspect will be incorporated into the budget. But, we will also have ideas on what the budget should look like and our priorities will also be taken into account. The bottom line is this is the start of a longer, larger process. It is a proposal, not the budget,” Conaway said.
Senator Debbie Stabenow, ranking member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, said she strongly opposes the proposed budget and the cuts that are critical to farmers, ranchers and families.
“In the last farm bill, we passed responsible bipartisan reforms that saved taxpayers billions more than expected. This budget proposal puts farmers and families in small towns and rural communities at risk. It’s deeply troubling that the Trump administration targets the Department of Agriculture for cuts averaging 21 percent—the third largest cut to any federal agency,” Stabenow said.
Stabenow said the proposal undermines job creation by eliminating access to credit for small businesses. She said it also completely ends rural water infrastructure programs that could leave some small towns without clean drinking water or safe sewer systems.
“The Trump administration neglects to clarify all of the areas that will be cut. This puts a target on hundreds of critical USDA programs and services that rely on annually appropriated funds, and could lead to cuts as high as 33 percent to agriculture research and extension, conservation planning, wildfire prevention and efforts to fight avian influenza and other threats to our food system,” Stabenow said. “As we move forward on the budget process, I will oppose these cuts and, instead, continue to work in a bipartisan way to strengthen support for agriculture and our rural communities.”
International food aid programs and food safety programs would also be affected, according to The Hill.
According to CNBC, the Trump administration said the proposed budget cuts to FSA centers will streamline proce
I would not be concerned if the Trump admin cut funding for conducting the numerous agricultural surveys, in particular, “National Agricultural Classification Survey” OMB No. 0535-0226. We already report on our federal income tax; we are already providing status to our county office for ag exemption status.
They need to reduce the number of high ranking personnel in these offices that don’t do anything. That would save a lot of money.
The article speaks to, but does not make, specific conclusions. The information available here and elsewhere suggests that the Trump Administration spending proposal is both reckless and dangerous, not just to Texas and the agricultural economy, but to the nation and national security. Perhaps this would be a good time for the Texas Congressional delegation to work together to influence the drafting of better budget provisions. Congress has the authority and responsibility to draft and pass a responsible budget that includes necessary and valuable programs, in this case funding for the Department of Agriculture. Whatever visceral appeal wantonly slashing federal programs has to some people, we expect policy makers to act calmly with enlightened self-interest. The failure to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of bombast becoming policy, as your article above explains, speaks to an utter lack of understanding, much less enlightenment. When I see “Trump” on innumerable farm trucks and vehicles’ bumpers and hats, it is apparent that many voters failed to even grasp the “self-interest” component. The best that can be done now is to have the Texas Congressional delegation jointly do its job and protect the Texas agricultural economy and the national interest.
Cut welfare spending out of the farmbill! Thats where all the waste is!
Herein lies the biggest problem with the financial aspect of Washington, DC: everyone wants spending cut, but each group sees THEIR spending as essential. Sorry, but I am a rancher and I think it best if we all learn to do without leaning so heavily on the government. If an ag stat base is so important, farmers and ranchers should collectively pay some university or other appropriate body to gather the data instead of relying on federal taxpayer dollars. The cuts have to come from somewhere; lets do our part.
AMEN
Trump wants to cut everything except defense spending, which he wants to increase by 10% and give his fellow billionaires and century millionaires tax breaks. The Pentagon has never accounted for any money it has received,so defense spending will once again be rife with waste and irresponsibility. We have over 800 military bases in 70+ countries waging secret wars that we’ll hear about 20+ years later. We need spending on infrastructure and vital services to keep our country strong. The Romans overextended themselves with a military they couldn’t afford in lands they couldn’t defend. At least the roads they built lasted thousands of years, unlike American highways and bridges. Built with Chinese steel, like Trump Tower?
I have just realized that there are farmers that want to keep their unearned handouts. Guys get hold of yourself before you are classified as the Liberal Left. I am a farm raised Texas guy and proud of it. Please don’t tarnish our heritage with greed and whining.
Mike, this sounds like an accusation without evidence. Some pretty loaded words there, too. I trust you do not know that farm programs have been substantially cut in each of the last three farm programs. What’s left? There are a few commodity titles relating to quotas on sugar and the like. Not many dollars there in terms of the budget. There are conservation programs with a well recognized public benefit. There is a principle in government that what benefits the public deserves public investment. As to “handouts” about all that’s left is crop insurance. In any given year a farmer can be completely wiped out by the whims of Mother Nature. Farmer’s pay a hefty premium for this and the remainder is subsidized by the federal government. Commodity prices will never rise to a level where farmers could afford that premium on their own. The risk is too steep. And farming without it would almost certainly leave any farmer out of business within a few short years. The chance of getting the black bean are just too great. National farm policy has for many years recognized the importance of keeping farmers on the land. If we do not accomplish this, we’ll be importing food. Some think that’s a national security issue. Labels are easy to apply-harder to defend. There are a lot of farm raised Texas Guys out there with a well honed work ethic. That’s something you have in common with those still on the land. What’s left of the farm bill gives them a fighting chance to stay there against competition in other nations – where subsidies outpace our own four fold.
Gene, the problem is defining “what benefits the public.” Democrats for years have defined any spending they want to pile onto the heap as essential to the public interest. We all need to minimize our dependence on the government.
Dance with the devil and soon you have to pay the piper.
Modern agriculture dances with technology, information and efficiency. Farmers manage to be among the nation’s largest businesses – and a profoundly efficient one – even though no one of them has a “research department” ad “marketing department” or other minions to perform those tasks. They’ve depended on government for data, and essential information. They, and I, like less government. However, government has to do a few important things. It should do them well.I’m not kidding here folks. Without some means of a safety net, our food is going to come from somewhere else. And the jobs generated by those crops will go to the same place., Modern agriculture is a sustainable enterprise that assures American’s of the world’s safest, most abundant and most affordable food supply. Some say that, too, is a public good and worth of public investment. And as I’ve said, that investment has steadily declined in recent farm bills.