More Local news

• Lely High hosts basketball shootout
• FGCU, Edison State College form new partnership
• Naples man faces battery charges after night of swinging

Tell us about it

• What would you add to this story? Tell us what we missed.
• Do you have photos from this event? Documents we need to see? Share with us.
• Upload photos & videos
• More ways to get your stuff online and in the paper.

STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

Share and Enjoy [?]

Q: With escalating world wide food prices why does the U.S. Congress think it is necessary to budget and pay $20 billion to $30 billion dollars to farmers to idle their land?

E. Erickson, Bonita Springs

A: Congress passed this year’s Farm Bill for many reasons, and the provision paying $30 billion for farmers to idle their land had its own list.

Idling land protects the soil from excessive continuous plantings and prevents situations like the Dust Bowl of the 1930s where farmers in the Great Plains couldn’t grow anything. When farm land is idled, it also protects the environment. Fertilizer and other farm by-products aren’t running off into the area’s ecosystem. When the land isn’t farmed, it can be returned to a natural state like wetlands or prairies.

Judging by the tone of your question, E. Erickson, I’m guessing that you disagree with the decision of Congress in this matter. You’re not alone. Plenty of people objected to it, but most notably President George W. Bush and U.S. Rep. Connie Mack, R-Fort Myers.

The idling land is part of the $300-billion Farm Bill made official by Congress in June. Of the $300 billion, two-thirds is set aside for nutrition programs; another $40 billion went to farm subsidies; and there’s the $30 billion for farmers who idle their land that you mentioned, E. Erickson.

Bush made the legislative branch work for it, though, vetoing the provision twice — when it was originally sent and after Congress realized that original bill sent to Bush was missing 34 pages.

However, Congress felt so strongly about the Farm Bill that it passed with more than the necessary two-thirds vote needed to override a presidential veto. It was only the second time in Bush’s administration that a veto was overridden.

Not among the 80 senators and 317 representatives who voted to override the veto was Mack, the area’s Congressman.

“... At a cost of $300 billion in new spending, coupled with a host of new taxes, fees, subsidies for ethanol and farmers, and giveaways for union bosses, this Farm Bill falls short ...” Mack said in a released statement after he voted.

I didn’t get a chance to talk with all the 397 people who were in favor of the new law, but the staff of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi sent me her list of reasons for supporting it.

Most of the Farm Bill goes to nutrition programs like food stamps; helping schools provide healthy snacks for students; gives money to emergency feeding organizations like food banks and soup kitchens; eliminates the cap on childcare costs; and provides incentives for families to save for retirement or education.

The bill also invests in ethanol and other alternative fuel sources. Congress is trying to move the production of biofuels away from corn, which is what ethanol uses, to non-food feedstocks like switchgrass and woodchips.

Other reasons Pelosi supported the Farm Bill include its reforms in the farm subsidy program, investment in conservation program, a special provision for fruit and vegetable producers and its attempts to meet global food shortages.

You can do a lot with $300 billion.

---

Brad Kane is a staff writer for the Daily News. E-mail him In the Know questions at bjkane@bonitanews.com.