9/2/05
Right now, Congress is engaged in the debate over America’s priorities for the 2006 federal budget. Given the state of the economy, new federal tax cuts, and the cost of the war in Iraq, there is a major budget deficit. The Senate House and Agriculture committees are responsible for cutting $3 billion out of the 2006 Ag Budget and many Congressional and Administration leaders are targeting nutrition, conservation, family farm support and rural development programs for these huge cuts.

The Land Stewardship Project is very concerned about the impacts these cuts could have on family farmers, hungry Americans, and the land. We believe there is a superior alternative that supports placing modest payment caps on the amount of crop subsidies any one producer could receive from the government.

We support:

1. No cuts to the Conservation Security Program (CSP). CSP needs to be funded at $331 million as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office for FY 2006.

2. Payment limits on commodity programs. Legislation has been proposed in both the House and Senate to reduce the amount of subsidies any one producer can receive to $250,000 per year, and close loopholes in the program.

3. Limiting cuts to food support and nutrition programs to $600 million. These programs are delivering needed benefits to 25 million Americans, the vast majority of them children, the elderly and working families. We have joined with anti-hunger groups in Minnesota to say that they should not be the targets of heavy cuts.

TAKE ACTION TODAY

CONGRESS HAS TO MAKE A DECISION BY SEPTEMBER 16th ON HOW TO MAKE CUTS TO THE 2006 BUDGET. CALL YOUR U.S. SENATORS AND CONGRESSMAN NOW!!!

Senator Mark Dayton: 202-224-3244
Senator Norm Coleman: 202-224-5641
For your member of Congress’ number call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121

Tell them to:
• support payment limits on crop subsidies, as in the Senate’s Grassley/Dorgan bill;
• oppose any cuts to the Conservation Security Program;
• oppose cuts above $600 million in Food Support and Nutrition Programs

Leave a clear short message with these three points. Please call -- this is the final push.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

CSP needs to funded at $331 million for 2006:
• CSP is now being implemented in 220 watersheds across the country, with more slated for 2006. It is delivering payments to farmers who are practicing effective conservation on their working farm and ranch land, and providing an incentive for further improvements. CSP is a critical piece of farm and conservation policy, and should not be cut.

• Instead of being cut, CSP needs to be fully implemented as passed by Congress. This requires a continuous sign-up, nationwide implementation, and recognition of conservation benefits provide by systems such as rotational grazing, and resource conserving crop rotations. These improvements will mean more farmers and more land will benefit from the program.

• CSP has already been cut severely, while commodity programs have appeared to be exempt from cuts. In the FY2005 appropriations $2.9 billion of CSP funds were cut for agricultural disaster assistance.

• Compared to the $24 billion to be paid this year for commodity programs, conservation of our natural resources will receive just over $3 billion, less than half of which went to assist conservation on working farmlands, which is the critical need right now and is what CSP does. We need a much better balance in funding between annual commodity production and conservation, for the good of our nation’s long-term food security.

• CSP helps prevent, rather than create, pollution problems by supporting the establishment and maintenance of environmentally sound production systems. It is a smart investment that will save money spent in other USDA and federal programs to clean up impaired waters and other environmental problems.

Payment limitations are an appropriate way to cut:
• Too few farmers get the vast majority of farm program payments (in reality, less than 5 percent of farmers get more than 75 percent of the payments), leading to further land consolidation and land value inflation.

• Grain prices are usually driven down due to the overproduction contributing to the lack of meaningful payment limits for commodity crops. Artificially low market grain prices act as a subsidy for investor-owned factory farms, which purchase nearly all their feed on the market, as opposed to family farm livestock producers, who normally raise a large percentage of their own feed.

• Excessive subsidization of the production of the favored five commodity crops (corn, cotton, rice, soybeans, wheat) leads to intensified chemical use, increased soil erosion and soil degradation, and growing water pollution problems.

• Commodity programs are extremely expensive – averaging about $15 billion per year recently and expected to reach $24 billion in 2005. Given budget demands, this is the place to cut.

• Placing even a modest $250,000 payment limitation would save approximately $2 billion dollars over the next 5 years. According to 2003 USDA statistics, only four Minnesota operations would have be affected by a $250,000 payment limitation.

Food support and nutrition programs should not be cut by more than $600 million:
• The error rate for the Food Stamp Program has declined by almost one-third over the past five years from 9.86 percent to a record low of 6.63 percent in 2003

• Incidents of fraud are isolated: 98 percent of households receiving food stamps were eligible for the program.

• Food stamps are the nation’s largest child nutrition program. Eighty percent of food benefits, or over $23 billion in 2005, goes to families with children and allows them to purchase food in grocery stores and supermarkets.

• Food stamps let the families of laid- off workers who fall into poverty continue to afford food until they can get on their feet again.

FOR MORE INFO: Contact LSP’s Policy Program by calling 612-722-6377, email marks@landstewardshipproject.org or by mail at 2919 East 42nd St., Minneapolis, MN 55406. We’re on the web at www.landstewardshipproject.org.