Estate tax debate makes planning for death even more difficult

By Sara Wyant

“My wife and I are trying to do estate planning, but we don’t know how Congress is going to change the law,” lamented an elderly Kansas farmer during a recent meeting. “Do you have any idea of what they are going to do?”

Unfortunately, the estate tax picture, as well as the general tax picture in Congress, is about as clear as mud right now. As you may know, the federal estate tax expired December 31, 2009 after Congress was unable to reach an agreement on either a permanent or short-term extension. There is no federal tax on estates if you die this year, but then the death tax comes back with a vengeance.
The tax will be re-instated on January 1, 2011, with only a $1 million exemption and a 55% tax on amounts over that level--- unless Congress takes action to change the law. As a result, even smaller farms and businesses could end up paying a bucketful of taxes when the owner dies next year.

Several lawmakers have introduced bills to raise the exemption and change the tax rates. But changing the law won’t be easy. The Statuatory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, enacted in February 2010, requires that any changes to the estate tax beyond a two-year extension of 2009 law must be fully offset by cuts in programs or revenue raisers. In 2009, there was a $3.5 million exemption on estate taxes with a 45% top tax rate. An estate tax bill was passed by the House last year that would basically reinstate the 2009 exemption and rates.

In addition to the estate tax, there are a multitude of tax issues that need to be tackled before year’s end. The biodiesel tax incentive lapsed at the end of 2009 and has yet to be renewed. As a result, dozens of biodiesel plants are idling and investors are losing their confidence in renewable energy. Later this year, the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), widely known as the "Blenders' Credit" is set to expire. Last, but certainly not least, are the “Bush” tax cuts that you hear about so often about in political debates. If these tax cuts are not renewed, you could see tax increases in individual rates, capital gains, and dividends.

Fiscal war?

Tax issues could brew into a fiscal war of sorts for the country. President Obama wants to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and for couples making more than $250,000. Regarding the estate tax, Administration sources say the president’s position is to restore the estate tax and extend it at the 2009 rates.

Several GOP lawmakers are fighting to reduce the estate tax and continue the previous tax cuts. They argue that, with the economy sagging and millions unemployed, it’s exactly the wrong time to force small business owners to pay more taxes. Doing so will place an additional damper on economic recovery.
Yet, others say that continuing the current tax cuts will be fiscally irresponsible and add to an already alarming federal deficit. The Congressional Budget Office recently forecast that the federal deficit will reach $1.34 trillion for this fiscal year.

Even former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, an influential voice in favor of the first Bush tax cut in 2001, weighed in recently. On NBC's Meet the Press Aug. 1 he said that extending the cuts without making offsetting spending reductions could prove "disastrous."

"I'm very much in favor of tax cuts, but not with borrowed money," said Greenspan.
Tax package ahead?

When the Senate returns in mid-September, lawmakers are likely to consider a small business bill which could include a “fix” for the estate tax problem. The American Farm Bureau Federation is supporting an amendment to the small business bill that was introduced by Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and John Kyl (R-AZ.). Their measure would set the estate tax exemption at $5 millionwith a 35 percent maximum rate.

Another bill, introduced by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), would defer estate taxes on farms and ranches if a number of conditions are met. Her “Family Farm Estate Tax Referral Act of 2010, includes provisions that the farm must be passed on to an individual or family member who has been materially engaged in its management and operation for at least five years, and the heirs must continue to use the land for farming purposes.

A “recapture tax” would be owed if the farm or ranch was subsequently sold outside the family or was no longer used for farming or ranching. The tax due would be based on the value of the estate at the time the property is sold or ceases to be used for farming or ranching.

Yet another measure has been introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT.). His bill is cosponsored by Sens. Tom Harkin (D-IA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH). The bill would exempt the first $3.5 million of an estate from federal taxation ($7 million for couples), the same exemption that existed in 2009, and create a progressive rate so the so called “super wealthy” pay more. The tax rate for estates valued between $3.5 million and $10 million would be 45 percent, the rate on estates worth more than $10 million and below $50 million would be 50 percent; and the rate on estates worth more than $50 million would be 55 percent.

The AFBF supports the Lincoln/Kyl amendment because it seeks a permanent forgiveness of estate taxes while the Feinstein bill is a deferral with taxes owed if property were ever sold outside the family or ceased to be used for agriculture.
The National Farmers Union sent a letter of support for the Lincoln/Kyl bill, but their policy actually calls for a $4 million individual exemption. Chandler Goule, NFU’s VP for Government Relations says the Lincoln/Kyl measure is preferable to current law and says a conference between the two chambers could come close to what NFU has been supporting.

Failure to include estate tax reform in the Small Business bill increases the likelihood that estate tax reform will be included in a major tax package that is expected to be considered in a “lame duck” session after the mid-term election, says Patricia Wolff, Director, Public Policy for AFBF.

Where the offsets would come from to pay for estate tax reform or other changes in the tax code is still anyone’s guess.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) has circulated an idea that would allow individuals to prepay their estate tax, based on current value. Conceivably, the federal government would receive more money up-front, but could lose money if an individual’s assets appreciate considerably between the time they pay and the time they die.

One relatively piece of good news for those of you trying to plan: There is little opposition to a stepped-up basis on asset values, says Wolff, so any of the proposed “fixes” will likely allow any appreciation of the affected property that occurred during a person’s lifetime to never be taxed.
#30

Vilsack and Holder headline competition workshops

Washington, March 10 – Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and U.S. Attorney General
Eric Holder will participate in the first joint USDA/Justice Department workshop on
agriculture competition issues Friday in Ankeny, Iowa. Attorney General Holder and
Secretary Vilsack will deliver opening remarks for the workshop at 9:30 A.M. CST and
participate in a roundtable discussion at 9:45 A.M. CST. Following the roundtable
discussion, Vilsack and Holder will hold a press conference at 11:00 A.M. CST.
This initial all-day workshop to gather public input is part of a planned series of
workshops across the country designed “to explore competition and regulatory issues in the agriculture industry.” The workshop will be held at the FFA Enrichment Center at Des Moines Area Community College (DMACC) in Ankeny.

The workshops, announced by Holder and Vilsack last August, are the first joint
USDA/Justice Department workshops ever to be held to discuss competition and
regulatory issues in the agriculture industry. The goals of the workshops are “to promote dialogue among interested parties and foster learning with respect to the appropriate legal and economic analyses of these issues, as well as to listen to and learn from parties with experience in the agriculture sector.” Attendance at the workshops is free and open to the public. The general public and media interested in attending the initial workshop should register at https://go.dmacc.edu/ffa/agworkshop


Holder, Vilsack and Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Antitrust
Division Christine Varney will participate in the workshop and will be joined by Iowa Lt. Gov. Patty Judge, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller and Iowa Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey. They will participate in a roundtable discussion with presentations on current issues affecting farmers. Testimony and roundtable discussion by a panel of farmers will follow. The workshop will also feature two panels focusing on the competitive dynamics in the seed industry and trends in contracting, transparency and buyer power. The first day of the workshops will end with an “enforcer roundtable” and public testimony.

The workshop schedule:

Opening Remarks (9:30 a.m. CST - 9:45 a.m. CST)
Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Eric Holder, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
Roundtable Discussion and Presentation of Issues (9:45 a.m. CST - 10:45 a.m. CST)
Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Eric Holder, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
Christine Varney, Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, U.S. Department of Justice
Patty Judge, Lt. Governor, State of Iowa
Tom Miller, Attorney General, State of Iowa
Bill Northey, Secretary of Agriculture, State of Iowa
Tom Harkin, Senator, U.S. Senate (tentative)
Chuck Grassley, Senator, U.S. Senate (tentative)
Leonard Boswell, Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives (tentative)

Invited:
Bruce Braley, Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives
Steve King, Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives
Tom Latham, Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives
Dave Loebsack, Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives

Farmer Testimony and Roundtable Discussion (11:15 a.m. CST - 12:15 p.m. CST)
Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Christine Varney, Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, U.S. Department of Justice
Ken Fawcett, independent crop farmer, Eastern Iowa
Jim Foster, hog producer, Montgomery City, Missouri
Pam Johnson, farmer, Floyd, Iowa
Eric Nelson, grain and cattle farmer, Moville, Iowa
Todd Wiley, hog producer, Walker, Iowa
Eddie Wise, hog and produce farmer, Whitakers, North Carolina

Seed Competitive Dynamics Panel (1:15 p.m. CST - 2:15 p.m. CST)
Moderator:
James MacDonald, Chief, Agricultural Structure and Productivity Branch, Economic
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Panelists:
Ray Gaesser, Soybean and Corn Farmer, Corning, Iowa; Vice President, American
Soybean Association; Former President, Iowa Soybean Association
Neil E. Harl, Charles F. Curtiss Distinguished Professor in Agriculture and Emeritus
Professor of Economics, Iowa State University; Member of the Iowa Bar
Dermot Hayes, Professor of Economics and Finance, Pioneer Chair in Agribusiness, Iowa
State University
Diana Moss, Vice President & Senior Fellow, American Antitrust Institute
Jim Tobin, Vice President, Industry Affairs, Monsanto Company

Agricultural Trends Panel (2:15 p.m. CST - 3:15 p.m. CST)
Moderator:
Phil Weiser, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
Panelists:

Brian Buhr, Professor and Head of Department, Applied Economics, University of
Minnesota
Rachael Goodhue, Associate Professor, Department of Agriculture and Resource
Economics, University of California, Davis
Mary Hendrickson, Extension Associate Professor of Rural Sociology, University of
Missouri
John Lawrence, Professor of Economics, Iowa State University
Chuck Wirtz, pork producer, Whittemore, Iowa
Patrick Woodall, Research Director, Food & Water Watch

Enforcer Roundtable Discussion Panel (3:30 p.m. CST - 4:30 p.m. CST)
Moderator:
Mark Tobey, Special Counsel for State Relations and Agriculture, U.S. Department of
Justice
Panelists:
Steve Bullock, Attorney General, State of Montana
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, State of Ohio
Chris Koster, Attorney General, State of Missouri
John Ferrell, Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, U.S.
Department of Agriculture
Stephen Obie, Director, Division of Enforcement, Commodity Futures Trading
Commission
William Stallings, Assistant Section Chief, Transportation, Energy and Agriculture
Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice

Public Testimony (4:30 p.m. CST - 5:30 p.m. CST)
This is an opportunity for those in the audience to make comments in an open forum.
Closing Remarks (5:30 p.m. CST)
Phil Weiser, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
John Ferrell, Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, U.S.
Department of Agriculture
Additional updates and information will be posted on the Antitrust Division’s agriculture workshop Web site at http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/workshops/ag2010/index.htm.
While no streaming webcast will be available, transcripts will be available for review at a later date on the Antitrust Division’s Web site. Individuals seeking more information on the workshops should contact agriculturalworkshops@usdoj.gov.

Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy

#30

President Obama signals new emphasis on trade

By Sara Wyant

Prior to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech this week, we asked a cross section of farm and rural residents what they would like to hear him say. One theme that came across loud and clear: the need for this administration to get busy creating jobs through an aggressive trade strategy.

“Get busy on trade!” was the advice of Kansas Farm Bureau President Steve Baccus. “That means get back to negotiating trade agreements that are USA friendly and work with the administration and Congress to quickly approve the ones waiting out there. Improving global trade will have an immediate impact on our economy.”

President Obama delivered Wednesday night, as part of his State of the Union speech:

“We need to export more of our goods. Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security, he said.

“We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. And that's why we'll continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea and Panama and Colombia.”

For more on the President’s speech: http://www.agri-pulse.com/uploaded/Jan2710H2.pdf

Farm groups quickly applauded the President’s focus on trade.

“As leaders of an industry dependent on exports for half its sales, we were thrilled to hear that President Obama plans to give trade a more prominent role in his administration’s economic recovery agenda,” said U.S. Wheat Associates Chair Janice Mattson, a wheat grower from Chester, MT., and National Association of Wheat Growers President Karl Scronce, a wheat grower from Klamath Falls,OR in a joint statement.

The American Farm Bureau Federation also welcomed the news:

“Expanded trade opportunities are vital to America’s farmers and ranchers, and we welcome and support the president’s call to export more of our agricultural goods. We appreciated his support for strengthening trade relations with Asia and with key partners like South Korea, Panama and Colombia. We join President Obama in his stated goal of doubling our exports over the next five years and we look forward to working with the administration on a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports,” said AFBF President Bob Stallman in a statement.

As much as farmers and ranchers are excited about the potential for a new push on trade, the devil is in the details. And for now, there do not appear to be any.

Farm-state senators, like Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, wants action sooner rather than later.

“In his speech, the President said exports are important to job creation, and education is necessary for U.S. workers to compete worldwide,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley. “I agree with those words. Now I’m looking for action. There are two immediate ways to advance these goals. One is for the President to send Congress implementing legislation for the three pending trade agreements that have been ready to go for years. The other is to fund a training program that will help workers get the skills they need for good jobs in the United States.”

So how quickly will the Obama team act? When the New York Times asked the White House for specifics, their editors were told that the Commerce Secretary Gary Locke would provide more details in a speech next week.

For now, all we can say is…..stay tuned.

Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy

#30

Farm Bureau's Stallman Puts Activists on notice: No More Mr. Nice Guy

In a hard-hitting speech, the Texan signals that farmers and ranchers have had enough of those who want to drag agriculture back to the day of 40 acres and a mule

By Sara Wyant

The farmers and ranchers I know are fiercely independent individuals who are willing to do whatever it takes to take care of their families, their animals and their land. But that doesn’t mean they go looking for fights.

In fact, most of them face so many everyday challenges, like bone-chilling weather and tough economic conditions, that they would just like to stay out of the limelight and live in peace.

But there are a growing number of these battle-scarred men and women who have had enough of the attacks from the growing list of critics, environmental groups and even some of their own elected officials. They have had a long couple of years listening to the Michael Pollans of the world, reading incredibly biased coverage in Time magazine and watching pseudo-documentaries like Food Inc.

You can almost hear them say, “Enough Already!” They are mad as hell and they don’t want to take it any more.

American Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman captured that sentiment in his powerful opening speech during the organization’s 91st annual convention in Seattle this week. Stallman, who was elected as the national organization's 11th president in 2000, delivered the most hard-hitting speech I have ever heard him give, and for many of the 4,500 in the audience, it was his best.

It’s been a long time since we have had farm leaders inspire audiences with messages like Mary Elizabeth Lease used to deliver in the late 1800’s, when she reportedly told farmers to “raise less corn and more hell”

Some farmers still remember when the charismatic Oren Lee Staley fired up members of the National Farmers Organization in the early 1960's to fight food processors for higher prices, telling them: "American farmers have retreated as far as they can. We do not intend to retreat any further."

Clearly, there’s been a void in the number of top leaders, both from the public and private sector, who are willing to use the bully pulpit to stand up for American agriculture in more recent years. Stallman indicated that he is ready to take off the gloves and lead the fight. His audience loved it.

(See: “AFBF President calls on farmers and ranchers to unite, fight extremists” http://www.agri-pulse.com/uploaded/20100110S.pdf

It’s not that the Farm Bureau is unwilling to engage divergent interests. As Stallman stood before his convention attendees, an estimated 4,500 farmers and ranchers from all across America, he pointed out:

“As I scan this hall, I see farmers who embrace all the tools of modern agriculture. I see people who choose modern organic production…I see folks who plant conventional seed and those who use biotechnology. I see families who raise livestock in sheltered, climate-controlled conditions. I see feedlot operators. But also among our ranks here in Seattle, I see farm and ranch families who produce grass-fed beef, free-range pork and cage-free eggs.”

And AFBF is actively working with several environmental groups, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, World Wildlife Fund, and The Nature Conservancy on Field to Market: The Keystone Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture.

But enough of that “Mr. Nice Guy” stuff.

“A line must be drawn between our polite and respectful engagement with consumers and how we must aggressively respond to extremists who want to drag agriculture back to the day of 40 acres and a mule,” said Stallman. “The time has come to face our opponents with a new attitude. The days of their elitist power grabs are over.”

Consider yourself warned.

Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy

#30

Food and Nutrition celebration: An opportunity lost?

USDA officials held an important event recently, celebrating the 40th anniversary of the department’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). As I scanned the 100-plus people assembled for the event in the Whitten Building’s central patio, I found several dignitaries, but kept looking for “aggies” in the room. Unfortunately, I spotted only a handful.

Why were so few representatives of the nation’s primary farm and commodity groups at the invitation-only event? The folks at FNS say it was an abbreviated invite list and focused only on those groups they work with most often. But the fact that many agricultural groups weren’t on the “A” list, underscores a continuing gap between those who most need the food and those who produce most of the food.

In case you are not familiar, FNS administers the nation’s domestic nutrition assistance programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP (formerly the Food Stamp Program); the National School Lunch Program, and 13 others. Their efforts touch one in five people across the U.S. with some type of feeding program.

Since 1969, when FNS was officially established the SNAP/Food Stamp Program has issued over $554 billion in program benefits; NSLP has served over 169 billion meals; and $27 billion in USDA commodities have been issued in food benefits for schools and another $23 billion in food benefits for household and emergency feeding programs.

Farmers and FNS “customers” are linked in a variety of ways. Spending on these programs makes up about two-thirds of USDA’s budget and utilizes billions of dollars in farm commodities. Congressional supporters of FNS are a crucial part of the political coalition that enables passage of major farm bills.

The hour-long ceremony, led by USDA’s Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan, was everything you might expect from an anniversary celebration: a historical timeline, a progress report, and video to highlight the agency’s accomplishments. Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) and Congressman James P. McGovern (D-MA) presented Merrigan with a resolution honoring FNS for 40 years of fighting hunger and improving nutrition. It was heartening to learn about the millions who have benefited and USDA’s plans to reach out to even more individuals who still go to bed hungry every night.

However, there was little recognition of the important connection between food production and food consumption in the FNS programs. The anniversary video started with one slide of a farm field, but the rest focused on how each of the programs worked and the types of consumers served. There was no discussion about how farm productivity has helped keep costs low so that millions of Americans can eat a safe, affordable food supply. And there was no mention of how plant breeding and biotechnology have played an important role in creating healthier foods.

In recorded remarks, Secretary Vilsack pointed out that President Obama is committed to reducing childhood hunger by 2015. To do that, the Secretary will need plenty of additional funds and lots of good thinkers on this subject. The folks at the FNS will certainly play a key role, but let’s hope they reach out to those who represent farmers and ranchers as part of the process.

At the same time, traditional agriculture groups also need to look for innovative new ways to be engaged with the food and nutrition community. Groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation have already done so by working with Feeding America (formerly America’s Second Harvest) to donate millions of pounds of food. Working through their Young Farmers and Ranchers organization, Farm Bureau provided the equivalent of 6.4 million meals through Feeding America-affiliated food banks across the country last year

There’s an old bumper sticker that says: “If your child ate today, hug a farmer.” More farm and commodity organizations need to figure out how that embrace can go both ways.

Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy

Farm groups divided over climate change legislation

Most farmers and ranchers are worried about all of the day-to-day tasks of getting a crop in the ground, taking care of livestock and making sure that lenders are getting paid on time, so climate change legislation is probably the furthest thing from their minds. But like it or not, terms like cap and trade, offsets and emission allowances need to be added to farmers' long list of concerns. Understanding these terms could have more to do with long-term farm profitability than decisions like picking the best variety to plant or whether or not to cull some of your cows.

That’s because, believe it or not or like it or not, climate change legislation is moving through the House of Representatives like a steamroller, driven by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman. The two California Democrats want to demonstrate to the world that they can address global warming, even though they had to cut so many side deals with members from coal and oil producing states that the legislation is a far cry from the original package.

Although the far-reaching climate change bill is still a “work in progress,” Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee told reporters that they expect to have enough votes to move their bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, out of committee by the Memorial Day recess. In what has become typical fashion this year, Waxman released the whopping 932-page bill, (H.R. 2454) on a Friday with a pledge to start marking it up on Monday----providing almost no time to read and comprehend the entire measure.

But thanks to modern technology, you can quickly search the legislation for words like “agriculture.” As expected, the word is barely mentioned.

So is that good news? Many think that agriculture should be a prominent player in any type of climate change legislation because so many agricultural and forestry practices can sequester carbon and be a big part of the solution. According to the USDA, agriculture and forestry have the potential to reduce 15-25 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and provide new revenue streams for farmers and foresters in the process.

In a letter to Waxman last week, National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson called for the Energy and Commerce Committee to establish a “robust and flexible” offset program and to make sure that agriculture is not subject to an emissions cap. In addition, NFU called for the inclusion of several key provisions, including:
The USDA is granted control and administration of the agriculture offset program;
Early actors are recognized;
No artificial cap is placed on domestic offsets;
Carbon sequestration rates are based on science; and
Producers are permitted to stack environmental benefit credits.

Earlier this year, NFU was one of 12 agricultural groups that signed off on a list of "principles” for greenhouse gas legislation - The American Farmland Trust, American Soybean Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Farmers Union and National Milk Producers Federation, National Association of Conservation Districts, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Farmers Union, Public Lands Council, United Fresh Produce Association, and the Western Growers Association. An updated fact sheet on those principles is available here: http://www.wheatworld.org/userfiles/file/Climate%20Response_ALL_4%2021%2009.pdf

But after Waxman started pushing hard to move legislation without incorporating agriculture, some of those same groups came out opposed to the bill.

The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) sent a letter to Congressman Waxman earlier this week, expressing its concern with the current version and outlining the potential for negative economic impacts to the agriculture sector if a cap-and-trade system is not structured properly.

“After reviewing the legislation, we can see the bill does not clearly provide for a mechanism by which corn growers can sell carbon credits on the market,” NCGA President Bob Dickey said. “We strongly believe the bill will increase input costs without specific opportunities to offset those additions. We cannot support the American Clean Energy and Security Act in absence of the provisions that we have explained in some length to the Committee.”

American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman struck an even harsher tone in releasing a statement on its opposition to the bill.

“The (bill) is laden with so many policy prescriptions that its impact on the U.S. is almost impossible to measure and evaluate,” Stallman said. “We can be certain of some things, however—it will increase our operating costs and reduce our competitiveness abroad.”

According to Stallman, the measure does not adequately provide for alternative sources of energy that will “plug the hole” created when fossil fuel costs escalate dramatically. Farm Bureau is also concerned about the potential impact on fertilizer prices, given their sensitivity to natural gas costs.

“The bill would effectively lock the United States into these changes regardless of what is done by other countries, such as China and India,” Stallman said. “Such an approach is little more than gambling with U.S. jobs and productivity. Taken as a whole, the bill falls far short of what is necessary for agriculture to survive and grow.”

So the battle lines are drawn. We know that some groups are working hard to have “a seat at the table” in order to influence whatever comes out of Waxman’s committee, while others are working feverishly to stop the legislation altogether. The measure could die a slow death “kill in the Senate, where . But the biggest wild card it that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) might attempt to lower greenhouse gas emissions through regulations if no legislation is adopted.

Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy

#30