Q:  What are five policy matters farmers ought to watch in 2018? 

A: The list includes: taxes, the farm bill, trade, regulations and consolidation in agribusiness. First, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed into law in December provides key tax provisions important to a farmer’s bottom line in 2018 and beyond. Watch for across-the-board tax relief to free up capital for investment and growth, in addition to expanded Section 179 benefits that allow farmers to deduct farm expenses in the year incurred. Doubling of the estate tax exemption gives families in rural America more peace of mind, providing tax fairness for family-owned farms and businesses that otherwise would have to divert resources or sell off part of the long-owned business to pay “a tax on the right to transfer property at death.” That’s the IRS definition of the federal estate tax, and many family-owned businesses have long had a philosophical and fiscal beef with this arguably confiscatory tax. Second, Congress needs to rewrite the farm bill. Third, the administration is negotiating key trade agreements, notably the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that is very important to American agriculture. Fourth, keep an eye on implementation and enforcement of federal rules impacting farm management practices, biofuels and livestock markets, including the Waters of the United States (WOTUS), the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) and the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) rules. Finally, the continuing consolidation trend in agribusiness stands to impact the entire farm to table supply chain, affecting food production, livestock and grain marketing, biotechnology, and ownership of chemical and seed companies. Concentration in the agribusiness industry raises concerns about the effect on competition, innovation and prosperity in the farm economy.

Q: What are your legislative and oversight priorities relative to these five issues?

A: As far as the new tax law, I’m already working to fix an unintended mess that negatively impacts privately owned grain elevators. The provision signed into law in December was intended to replicate a tax benefit cooperatives had under the old law, but went too far, resulting in farmers having a much larger incentive to sell crops to co-ops rather than to private grain elevators. This creates a distortion in the marketplace. Given the appropriate attention being paid to this policy measure right now, I would suggest that Iowa farmers sit tight and not make marketing decisions based on this provision because the fix should be retroactive to the first of the year, nullifying any unintended incentives or disincentives. I’m working with lawmakers and the administration to iron out this botched provision that’s causing so much confusion and uncertainty for farmers and grain handlers.  As for the farm bill, my first priority is to bring stability and certainty to risk management tools for farmers, specifically the federal crop insurance program to help mitigate natural disasters and losses. In addition, I will be making another full court press to enact reasonable payment limits that I got passed when Congress renewed the farm bill last time around in 2014, winning 75 votes, a three-fourths majority in the United States Senate. My legislation would have adopted enforceable payment limits and closed loopholes that allow non-farmers to game the system. This is typically done by using a non-farming family member, and naming them “managers,” to qualify for additional subsidies paid for by taxpayers. Unfortunately, the Grassley payment limit provisions were stripped out of the bill during final negotiations between the House and Senate. Remember, the farm safety net was enacted during the Great Depression to stabilize food security in the United States by helping America’s farmers and ranchers weather economic downturns and natural disasters. It was not intended to have the taxpaying public subsidize the largest farms to keep growing their operations, at the expense of smaller producers and beginning farmers. I’m not opposed to individual farmers growing their businesses as big as they want, but taxpayers shouldn’t be picking up the bills that enable mega-producers to buy up more and more farmland. I’ll also work to fix the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to operate as intended so that the federal government isn’t driving up rental rates and driving away beginning farmers who are unable to compete with the federal government for productive land to farm. Regarding NAFTA, I’ve made my position very clear to the Trump administration that farm exports are vital to jobs, economic growth and prosperity in rural America. I expect President Trump to stand by his pledge made at the American Farm Bureau’s annual convention in Nashville: to do no harm to agriculture, including value-added agriculture and manufacturing. As he pursues better trade deals aligned with the Trump doctrine to “put America first,” I’ll be watching and sharing my views to make sure he remembers the Iowa farmer, who depends on international markets to sell every third row of soybeans planted; and the Iowa John Deere worker, whose job depends on tractors sold in foreign markets (more than 1 out of 4). So far, the Trump administration is batting two out of three when it comes to three regulations impacting Iowa farmers: WOTUS, RFS and GIPSA.  I vehemently oppose the administration’s decision to rescind the Farmer Fair Practice rule, commonly known as the GIPSA rule. Concentration in the livestock processing market is squeezing marketing opportunities for independent producers. Throwing out this rule tips the scale in favor of the packers and processors. I will continue riding herd on the USDA to give independent producers a level playing field to market their hogs, cattle and poultry and provide protections against unfair and retaliatory practices in violation of the Packers and Stockyard Act.  Finally, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I’ll continue congressional oversight of anti-trust enforcement to ensure that competition is preserved, fair and square, for farmers and consumers. To that end, I conducted a hearing in late 2016 to examine mergers in the seed, agrochemical, and fertilizer industries. The bigger-is-better trend in agribusiness isn’t always better for family farmers, independent producers and consumers who could end up paying more with fewer choices. As a watchdog for Rural America, I’m keeping a short leash on the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission to conduct rigorous review of mega-mergers sweeping agribusiness.

Support the River Cities' Reader

Get 12 Reader issues mailed monthly for $48/year.

Old School Subscription for Your Support

Get the printed Reader edition mailed to you (or anyone you want) first-class for 12 months for $48.
$24 goes to postage and handling, $24 goes to keeping the doors open!

Click this link to Old School Subscribe now.



Help Keep the Reader Alive and Free Since '93!

 

"We're the River Cities' Reader, and we've kept the Quad Cities' only independently owned newspaper alive and free since 1993.

So please help the Reader keep going with your one-time, monthly, or annual support. With your financial support the Reader can continue providing uncensored, non-scripted, and independent journalism alongside the Quad Cities' area's most comprehensive cultural coverage." - Todd McGreevy, Publisher