|
Back Issues |
|
Farm
& Garden
. On
the Farm Anyone with a herd doesn't need to be told -- the Northeast dairy Compact expired after a long and bitter fight. The arguments pro and con have circulated for at least as many years as the Compact had been in place. Opponents point to the price supports as a mechanism that leads to unfair competition, overproduction, and increased costs to consumers. But it doesn't take an Ag degree to know that, without some form of price support for Class I fluid milk, the price processors will pay may mean the end of operations for numerous family farms, both here in Vermont, in New England, and elsewhere. Of course, some see the process of 'natural selection' -- whereby some farms are able to make it in a world without a Compact, while others fail -- as simply one more instance of the laws of supply and demand and a free-market economy. But the question needs to be asked: Can Vermont continue to lose farms and farmland without also losing a lot more than however many cents per hundred-weight the Compact provided? ...
First, there's the long-standing opposition from the processing lobby, most notably, The International Dairy Foods Association. When it comes to the Compact, they've been crying 'foul' all along. And in their recent fact sheet circulations, which no doubt helped to defeat the Compact's renewal, the hammered away at the increased costs to consumers, saying it would add some $2 billion in costs for processors and consumers. Of course, only those with short-term memory loss won't recall that at least a few fingers were pointing in the direction of the processors when it appeared that much of the costs they were 'passing on' were not at all justified by the increases associated with the Compact. But the processing industry's lobby is a fact of life in Washington, one that had been there when the Compact was originally passed, and one that, since it's not going away, will be there for whatever proposals for renewal or revision come up down the road. A second possible obstacle that was talked about for awhile centered on Jim Jeffords decision to leave the Republican Party and become an Independent. The word circulating around Capitol Hill had it that the Bush administration was gunning for Jeffords because of his refusal to get on board for the full package of the President's original $1.6 trillion tax cut. As a result, the thinking goes, Bush decided to zero in on one of Jeffords' and Vermont's vital interest -- the Dairy Compact. But for all the talk, the odds that the administration's attitude played a significant role in the failure to renew the Compact probably doesn't wash. For one thing, unlike many issues in the current administration prior to the attacks last month, which seemed pretty strongly divided along party lines, the Dairy Compact has always been something of a bi-partisan, even if contentious bit of legislation, mostly owing to the regional nature of the plan. In that light, you'll find North Country Republicans from across the Lake strongly in favor of it, while hard-nosed Democrats in the upper mid-West tend to sound some of the strongest free-market Republicans when it's the Compact that's on the table. And when we look right here at home, it's pretty easy to see that each of our reps -- a Democrat, a Republican-turned-Independent, and an Independent from the start -- are all strongly in favor. Another obstacle may simply be the timing. With the devastation of last month's attacks, the expiration of the Dairy Compact could not have come at a worse time. It's likely that at least some who might otherwise have voted for it, or at least for an extension, did not want to present anything but the most unified face to the nation and the rest of the world. But even so, in the midst of everything, last month Representative Bernie Sanders managed to propose an amendment that even won over a few fellow House members from the upper mid-West, including long-time opponent, Rep. David Obey [D] of Wisconsin. The strategy was simple: Extend the Dairy Compact to every region in the country. In an AP report on the effort, Congressman Obey was quoted as saying, "No one in this chamber has been more opposed to regional dairy compacts than I have." But he also called Bernie's bill "the most imaginative effort to overcome regional differences that I have seen in the last four or five years." Earlier legislative attempts to keep the Compact alive in the House came in a bill introduced in May. HR 1827 aimed at re-authorizing the Compact and allowing five other states to join -- Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. It also sought to give Congressional consent to the formation of three additional dairy compacts -- in the Southeast, the Pacific Northwest, and the Intermountain regions, which included Colorado, Nevada, and Utah. The bill started out with some solid support, with 162 co-sponsors, including 82 Republicans, 79 Democrats. But it left out those states in the upper mid-West that were going to be most vocal in their opposition. Bernie's plan, then, addresses that problem head on. And while his amendment was defeated, it only lost by a fairly narrow margin -- 194-224. With a little more time, and a lot of effort, Bernie's plan may be the surest path back to the kind of supports that are needed to keep even more farms from going under. For an overview on the loss of farms and farmland in Vermont since the Civil War, see DownStreet's Vol. I, No. 8: On the Farm: The Decline in Regional Farming / 1860-Present. For Dairy Compact info from Vermont's Congressional delegation, see this month's Links to Farm & Garden On-Line.
. ******* ******* If you would like to submit a feature for our Farm & Garden section, don't hesitate to let us know. Simply e-mail us at farmgarden@downstreetmagazine.com. The e-mail should contain your name, address, and a phone number where we can reach you. You may also send a copy of your proposed article. The text can either be included in the body of the e-mail, or you can send it as an attachment in just about any word processing format. If your piece is accepted, we will pay a small honorarium for your interest & your time. [See Freelancers Wanted for more details.] ******* ******* If you would like to advertise in this section, or throughout the magazine, please visit our Advertising Info Pages ... or call, write, or e-mail ads@downstreetmagazine.com. ******* *******.. |
|
*******
******* ******* ******* For more information, contact DownStreet Magazine by ...
Phone
(802) 453-5124 All
material copyrighted © 2000-2001. All rights
reserved. |
