D.C. Insider Jim Weisemeyer Explains How Trump’s Return Could Shape Ag's Future

Fri, 24 Jan 2025 20:36:47 GMT

In less than a week after his inauguration, President Donald Trump has already signed executive orders by the dozens, quickly changing national policies in a multitude of areas. Even Washington reporter Jim Weisemeyer, who has been covering national ag politics for 50 years, is amazed by the new president’s productivity.

“Bill Clinton did a lot in his early years, but nothing close to this,” Jim says on the latest episode of the Unscripted podcast . Hosts Tyne Morgan and Clinton Griffiths, like journalists throughout the country, have been hustling this week to keep up with what Griffiths calls “the velocity of news.” On the podcast, they all pause to discuss what these changes could mean to the world of agriculture.

While the president’s threats of setting high tariffs even on our largest trade partners might be just a negotiation tool, it’s too soon to tell what will happen, says Weisemeyer. Though Trump received many votes from rural America, he’s not easy to predict. “There will be times when the ag sector won’t like what he’s done,” Weisemeyer says, noting that high tariffs and planned deportations could create trade and labor challenges for the ag sector. However, despite the flurry of policy changes in the first few days, much still needs to be settled.

Weisemeyer does feel confident about the confirmation of Brooke Rollins for the Secretary of Agriculture, another news item he covered this week. At her confirmation hearing, he says, “She was impressive. She said the right things at the right time. She’s a very professional, procedural person.” Despite lacking extensive experience in agriculture, she has the president’s ear and his trust, Weisemeyer says, adding, “And agriculture needs that.”

He’s less confident about the confirmation of Robert Kennedy Jr. for Secretary of Health and Human Services, though he remains optimistic. “It’s just a guess but I think he’ll be approved,” Weisemeyer says. “I think he’ll get some Democratic votes.”

As for the Washington rumor mill, he’s hearing talk about organizational changes at USDA. “They’ve been reorganized more than my diet,” he says. He’s even heard talk about the organization’s headquarters moving out of Washington in the not too distant future, but while nothing has been decided yet, he notes, “I don’t think we’ve heard the last of that.”

Given his hectic week, Weisemeyer did not attend the Bipartisan Inaugural Ball: Celebrating American Agriculture, held on the night of presidential inaugurations. Commonly known as the “Farm Prom,” it’s a formal affair, requiring a tuxedo that he didn’t want to wear. Morgan, however, says she would have loved to attend and wondered why Weisemeyer didn’t get an invitation for her.

Watch the full episode of Unscripted

YOUR NEXT READ
An Ag Insider’s View on Canada’s Turmoil, from Tariffs to Trudeau
Machinery Pete Explains Why 2025 Could Be a Great Year to Buy Equipment

Putting the Proposed Trump Ag Budget Cuts into Perspective

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 02:58:29 GMT

Bottom line: Most proposed cuts will not happen

NOTE: This column is copyrighted material; therefore reproduction or retransmission is prohibited under U.S. copyright laws.

If Congress and lobby groups have taught us anything in over 40 years of watching them, it is that most never want to reduce spending taxpayers’ money; in fact, they usually want increases.

The latest example is President Donald Trump’s admittedly harsh budget proposals for agriculture and a host of other departments and agencies, most of which will never be part of Congress’ final spending plans.

So, if you are a Cabinet member, how do you defend those Trump proposed cuts? It is easier when it comes to USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue, as most lawmakers acknowledge the White House budget process was virtually complete by the time he was confirmed April 25.

But Perdue in comments on Wednesday did offer some advice that farm-state lawmakers and farm lobbyists will not like: the budget proposals are the administration’s efforts to reduce the federal deficit and restore fiscal health.

Perdue acknowledged that the administration and Congress may not see eye-to-eye on how to accomplish that goal in agriculture. “We all have to acknowledge that we have a dilemma in this country about how to right-size the government,” Perdue said.

A right-sizing of government is another way of saying equitable program funding. And that gets you into complex matters when it comes to agriculture when few farm-state lawmakers and lobbyists do not want to take one cent out of some programs, especially food stamps and crop insurance.

The Trump administration is requesting an overall USDA budget of $21 billion in discretionary funding, a 21 percent decline from Fiscal 2017 enacted levels, and $116 billion in mandatory funding. Of that, the $4.7 billion Fiscal 2018 request for the Forest Service will be handled by the House and Senate Appropriations Interior-Environment subcommittees. That still is a lot of funding.

Agriculture groups and anti-hunger organizations fret the administration’s legislative proposals, which the White House said would generate $240 billion in budget savings over 10 years from farm programs and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps. The administration proposes that states gradually begin sharing SNAP costs with the federal government, with a cap of 25 percent cost-share by 2023.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) is always good for a quote for anyone wanting to spend taxpayer money. She said the $193 billion in proposed cuts to SNAP over 10 years constituted a budget that “I believe is cruel, I believe it heartless and I believe it is inhumane.” That’s a quote worthy for Rachel Maddow’s program on CNBC.

DeLauro asked Perdue if he stood behind a May 17 statement he made to the House Agriculture Committee that he considered SNAP an effective program that has fed millions of low-income people. “Absolutely,” Perdue responded. DeLauro said that did not square with the 2018 budget proposal.

“If you will notice, the FY ’18 budget fully funds SNAP as it has been. The legislative proposals going forward are something you and all of your members will have your stamp upon it,” Perdue said, noting that the $73.6 billion request in mandatory funding is expected to meet expected demand.

Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) said that requiring states to assume more of the SNAP costs would encourage greater oversight. He said the package of SNAP proposals would “return sanity” to the program. You probably thought there were no lawmakers or anyone else in liberal Maryland that would say such things.

And then there’s the sacrosanct crop insurance program. Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-Kan.) questioned the proposed 36 percent reduction to crop insurance over 10 years. Crop insurance serves as a financial safety net for farmers in his state and is especially important with a national farm economy in a fourth year of decline in net farm income, Yoder said.

Perdue was quick to support crop insurance. “I don’t think you’ll get any disagreement from me regarding the importance of crop insurance,” Perdue said.

But then Perdue said something that likely made farm policy stakeholders nervous. Perdue said “right-sizing” crop insurance is something that the House and Senate Agriculture committees can consider in writing the farm bill. The same, he said, also holds true for any changes to SNAP. Equitable spending. Priorities.

Several lawmakers continued to fret about rural development, adding to their concerns which surfaced after Perdue unveiled a recent USDA reorganization. Lawmakers asked Perdue about the proposed elimination of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, the Water and Wastewater Direct Loan and Grant program and the Single Family Housing Direct Loan program. And, House Ag Appropriations Chairman Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), ranking member Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), and others wanted assurances that Perdue’s plan to convert the post of undersecretary for rural development to an assistant secretary’s position in an office responsible for rural matters was not a demotion.

Perdue said the planned reorganization is not addressed in the Fiscal 2018 budget and that it is still being worked out. He stressed that the assistant secretary will have direct access to him to discuss ideas and proposals for rural America. An undersecretary, Perdue, would have to go through the deputy secretary. Perdue drew on his background as a businessman to say that if given the choice between a title and access to the boss, he would choose access. That will not likely satisfy no-change lawmakers, but it should.

Comments: The U.S. debt continues to rise. It is at such a level that the country can no longer grow its way out of the debt morass. That means some government spending must be reduced. But it also means the bulk of those cuts will have to come from entitlement programs. There is where President Trump made the problem worse when he pledged not to cut the two biggest entitlement programs, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Do the math.

As for agriculture cuts, the proposed reductions are excessive, no doubt about it. But that does not mean they should be increased or not cut at all.

Farm Policy Facts, a coalition of farm and commodity groups, unleashed a blistering response to the Trump administration’s budget proposals, arguing that it would “most assuredly” harm farmers and ranchers. “Our investment in agriculture is quite modest,” the coalition said. “The return is a robust and affordable food supply that is secure and grown right here at home. Defense is a priority for this administration, but it is shortsighted to beef up our military might while diminishing the ability to feed our own citizens.”

The coalition then got personal with Trump. It noted that only two months ago, Trump was praising farmers and ranchers as part of his proclamation of National Ag Day. “In a special proclamation, he encouraged all Americans to recognize ‘the preeminent role that agriculture plays’ in our daily lives and the national economy, and to express “deep appreciation” for the folks who feed and clothe us,” the group noted. “It is now clear that these words of deep appreciation were, in this case, a foil for deep cuts to farm policy. It adds insult to injury as the old saying goes. Farmers aren’t looking for praise; they’re looking for a fair shake. Sadly, in the first round of the Washington budget game, they have come up short on both.” Ouch.

And then today we have Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who is not a conservative Republican, calling for more changes via the new farm bill that he says will save money. When it comes to farm policy, always be wary of lawmakers who say programs will save money. Look at the farmer safety net programs of the 2014 Farm Bill – they cost billions of dollars more than Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates at the time the bill was written, mostly because of the more than expected “shallow loss” payments via the renamed Ag Risk Coverage (ARC) program. Thune wants changes to Title I crop support payments. The bill would require that Agriculture Risk Coverage-County payments are based on where the land is located and not on the administrative county for the farm and require base allocation for crop support payments to be based on planted acres from 2014-2017 instead of the historical acreage currently used. Under the current base allocation system, farms that have not planted commodity crops in years could still get crop-support payments because of the reliance on old data, Thune said, adding that the changes are “good government provisions” that could result in millions of dollars in savings. Populist lawmakers have a way of using new math. No wonder the U.S. debt is so high.

NOTE: This column is copyrighted material; therefore reproduction or retransmission is prohibited under U.S. copyright laws.

Washington DC

D.C. Insider Jim Weisemeyer Explains How Trump’s Return Could Shape Ag's Future

Putting the Proposed Trump Ag Budget Cuts into Perspective