Search the archive.

“Money for free! Well not exactly,” he writes. “The Piper that has to be paid will likely be paid for in the form of higher inflation, but that of course is what the central banks claim they want.” This is pretty surprising stuff coming from a guy who bet the farm back in 2010 on the idea that Federal Reserve bond buying would spark excessive inflation and cause interest rates to soar. Gross was wrong, and now, I guess, he’s admitting that his economic framework was flawed. And he should be commended for changing his mind as the evidence changes, as he should be commended for looking outside the box for solutions to anger that the 2016 election cycle has clearly showed are festering just beneath the surface of middle-class America. This is in stark contrast to what many of the experts who spoke at this week’s Milken Institute Global Conference were saying. At the conference, which draws the elite of the world of finance as well as many politicians, many seemed to be in denial, dismissing the idea that 2016 presidential primaries say anything about the problems ordinary Americans are facing. Of course, the chances of something like UBI passing in a political climate like we have today aren’t all that great. UBI boosters like to say that it’s an idea that both sides of the aisle can get behind, but the reasons why they can get behind it are so diametrically opposed as to make this agreement moot. The Democratic Party is getting pulled to the left on issues of entitlement spending and the minimum wage. The Republican Party (outside of Donald Trump) believes that we must cut or at least cap transfer spending. And neither party seems particularly interested in compromising, which makes the idea that they will set aside their differences to focus instead on the delivery method of these transfer payments a bit far fetched. Wonks like to talk about issues like UBI, because it allows them to discuss policy without taking political stand on what level of redistribution is fair. But politicians and voters care much more about big moral issues like what level of wealth inequality is just. And Congress isn’t going to waste the political capital on a major reform that may be palatable for everyone but doesn’t address these larger questions.

Politically, the most crucial moment in President Biden’s State of the Union address was his  that “some Republicans want Medicare and Social Security to sunset every five years.” Why did he say that? Maybe because Senator Rick Scott, when he was the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, released a fiscal plan last year with the  “All federal legislation sunsets in five years.” Seems straightforward, doesn’t it, despite cries of “lies” from the floor? But right-wing news media — well aware that Biden hit a nerve — has  insisting that his claim was false. Even some mainstream media figures have claimed that Biden was “.” The basis for these denunciations, as far as I can tell, is the idea that calling a plan to sunset legislation a plan to sunset legislation is somehow misleading, because voters don’t know what “sunset” means. Indeed, just because the legislation authorizing a program comes to an end needn’t mean that the program will die; Congress can always vote to reinstate it. But, of course, many Republicans do  to eviscerate these programs. To believe otherwise requires both willful naïveté and amnesia about 40 years of political history. First of all, if Republicans had absolutely no desire to make major cuts to America’s main social insurance programs, why would they sunset them — and thus create the risk that they wouldn’t be renewed? As Biden might say, c’mon, man. And then there’s that historical record. Two things have been true ever since 1980. First, Republicans have tried to make deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare every time they thought there might be a political window of opportunity. Second, on each occasion they’ve done exactly what they’re doing now: claiming that Democrats are engaged in smear tactics when they describe G.O.P. plans using exactly the same words Republicans themselves used. So, about that history. It has been widely forgotten, but soon after taking office Ronald Reagan proposed . But he backed down in the face of a political backlash, leading analysts at the Cato Institute to call for a “” strategy — their word — creating a coalition ready to exploit a future crisis if and when one arrived. To that end, Cato created the , calling for replacing Social Security with individual accounts — which George W. Bush tried to do in 2005. By then, however, Cato had quietly ; “privatization” polled badly, and Bush insisted that it was a “” used to “scare people.” So there’s a history here, and there’s a similar history for Medicare. Many people probably recall that Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in 1995. I don’t know how many people realize that Gingrich’s key demand was that President Bill Clinton agree to large  and Medicaid. After Republicans gained control of the House in 2010, Paul Ryan began pushing for major cuts in spending. One key element was converting Medicare from a system that pays medical bills to a system offering people  to be applied to the purchase of private insurance — that is, vouchers. But many though not all supporters of the Ryan plan insisted that calling vouchers “vouchers” was a left-wing smear. So are people who claim that Biden was over the top unaware of this track record? Do they really not know that Republicans have spent more than four decades trying to find ways to undermine Medicare and Social Security? Are they unaware that there’s a long history of Republicans whining that Democrats are engaged in smear tactics when they describe Republican policies using exactly the same words Republicans used themselves until political consultants urged them to find euphemisms? Well, I don’t think Biden is going to let up. He knows (as do his hysterical opponents) that his attacks are effective, and he has the facts on his side. Oh, and one Republican who might be especially vulnerable to Democratic attacks over social insurance programs is Ron DeSantis. Before becoming Florida’s governor, DeSantis enthusiastically  Ryan’s Medicare voucher proposal and declared that allowing seniors to retire in their late 60s was “unsustainable.” As governor, DeSantis has made headlines with culture-war attacks on education and his opposition to public-health measures. But in some ways his biggest achievement, if you might call it that, has been blocking the expansion of Medicaid in his state under the Affordable Care Act; in so doing he’s leaving  of Floridians with no realistic way to get health insurance and is leaving billions in federal funds on the table. True, Medicaid, unlike Medicare and Social Security, is means-tested. But it’s also ; DeSantis’s actions suggest that he’s an ideologue who hates social programs on principle. So to go back to our original premise, when Biden suggests that “some Republicans” want to eviscerate key programs, he’s right; and Ron DeSantis is almost surely one of the Republicans he’s right about.

GOP plans This year’s debate started when several influential Republicans urged big Social Security changes as part of broader government reform. In February, Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), who chairs the GOP’s Senate campaign committee, proposed a wide-ranging plan to sunset all federal programs, including Social Security and Medicare, after five years. Many Senate Republicans, including GOP leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) disavowed Scott’s plan. But others, such as Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), embraced it. Last June, the Republican Study Committee (RSC), which represents about 150 House Republicans, proposed tying the age at which people could collect full Social Security benefits to life expectancy, increasing the minimum benefit for those who work 40 years or more, and reducing initial benefits for high-income earners. House Republican leaders, including Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), who hopes to become Speaker next year, hint they may refuse to increase the nation’s debt limit unless Democrats agree to their Social Security and Medicare changes. Social Security’s recent announcement that it will increase benefits by 8.7 percent in 2023 only raised public attention on the program.

Yet there is some evidence that leads to a more optimistic assessment of MMT’s success. In the fall 2019 I was invited by Representative John Yarmuth’s (D, KY-03) office to testify on budget deficits before the House Budget Committee.5 Previous to and after the hearing I was told by the congressman as well as his staff that at least the Democrat side of the committee was genuinely interested in and actively considering the MMT approach to fiscal policy. It turned out that was true on the Democrat side, but the Republican side merely parroted talking points proclaiming that the US federal government ought to balance its books just like any household or firm and that MMT’s prescriptions would lead to rack and ruin.

Enter a new far-flung theory, this time from the far left. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) promises that we should stop obsessing over how to pay for policies such as Medicare for All, a federal jobs guarantee, a universal basic income, free college—anything really. Imagining a world without federal budget constraints is politically attractive to some progressives because they’ve rightfully felt short-changed by blatant Republican hypocrisy. Republicans screamed about the national debt when Obama was in office trying to save the economy from the great recession, and then passed a huge tax cut for high-income and wealthy individuals and corporations in the midst of an economic expansion.

On the surface, the politics seem as stuck as ever. , introduced bills   to set up pilot programs in 15 cities and regions that would offer training and a guaranteed job to all who sought one, at federal expense. Both efforts failed.

In sum, the debate over JGPs is fraught. Even those who support the aims of a JGP, and are favourably inclined to activist public policy, may still be wary of a JGP for economic and political economy reasons. Implementing a JGP will require political capital and the right political conditions. It might be better to use that favorable moment to introduce new policies (e.g. a UBI) and upgrade a collection of existing different policy modalities that together deliver the same or more benefits without the political economy risks.

The Senate failed to move forward with Democrats' "Green New Deal," but the partisan clash over the controversial environmental plan is likely to be a continuing theme ahead of the 2020 election. The measure needed 60 votes to advance but was blocked when all Senate Republicans and four Senate Democrats opposed it. The rest of the chamber's Democrats voted "present." Senate Republicans forced a vote on the proposal Tuesday as part of an ongoing effort to turn the provocative climate change resolution into a wedge issue in the 2020 elections. Democrats say the GOP gambit carried its own political risk of mocking an issue that is a priority for ag number of Americans.

That’s because over many decades, people – especially the most vulnerable – have found that degrowth has not been good for them. Recessions are a form of degrowth, and they result in unemployment, bankruptcy, homelessness and hardship. Recessions also mean politicians tend to double down on growth, fearful of a backlash from voters if living standards are falling. Faced with the choice between higher use of fossil fuels or having the lights go out, governments have opted for the former.

As my colleagues , experts generally agree that there are two ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the speed and scale required. The first is making fossil fuels more expensive by ensuring that their environmental costs — global warming, for one, but also the staggering harms of  — are reflected in their price. While widely championed by , carbon taxes have proved politically unpopular: A carbon tax by ballot referendum in Washington State has failed .

Meanwhile, the insurgent left wing of the Democratic Party has cast carbon pricing aside in favor of more ambitious, large-scale ideas. “For far too long, ideas like a carbon tax or cap-and-trade were touted as the premier solutions to climate change,” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the popular Democratic congresswoman from the Bronx, wrote on  last year. “They are inadequate.” The party’s presidential nominee, Joe Biden, has proposed a massive, $2 trillion package that would eliminate emissions from the electricity sector by 2035 — but stopped short of recommending a carbon tax. Similarly, a , released in June by Democratic members of the House, included only two caveat-filled pages on the idea. “Congress should consider a carbon price as only one tool,” the authors warned. “Carbon pricing is not a silver bullet.”

Carbon prices save dollars, these researchers admit. But they expend an even scarcer resource: political capital. Because a carbon price affects all of society, it increases costs for every energy consumer, without providing an immediate alternative. Because most industries interact with the energy system only as consumers, that takes a cohort that wouldn’t care about climate policy in the abstract and turns it into a foe.

In 2018, Congressman Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican, introduced a carbon tax bill that foresaw a reduction of emissions to 40% below the 2005 level by 2050. Once again, intransigence killed the legislation. Subsequently, the GOP-controlled House passed a resolution deeming a carbon tax detrimental to the national economy. And more recent attempts to implement a national carbon fee were non-starters.

The updating of a carbon tax would require a congressional vote and thus the mobilization of political capital for a potential legislative battle every 5 years. For reasons unrelated to climate policy, the president may opt not to initiate such a battle and thus decide against proposing a tax update. Moreover, future Congresses may be more or less inclined to vote for a change in the carbon tax in response to a given change in information. This means that political factors—which are distinct from the results of the environmental, economic, and multilateral reviews—may determine the evolution of carbon tax rates over time. In such cases, the resulting carbon tax rates may be inconsistent with the objective of maximizing social welfare and/or inadequate to achieve long-term climate change goals.

Utah Sen.  reaffirmed his support for a carbon tax, calling it the “No. 1 thing” that will help curb global emissions and rising temperatures, an idea that is slow to gain traction in the Republican Party. Romney spoke during a Washington Post  on Thursday morning, taking the stage after President Joe Biden’s climate envoy, John Kerry, to talk about ways to curb climate change. Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall also spoke earlier in the week, touting steps taken to combat air pollution and ways she hopes to juggle population growth and water conservation. “They could have done it. It was an opportunity that was missed and we’ll be very sorry about that for a long time,” While Romney acknowledged a carbon tax likely wouldn’t get majority support among Senate Republicans, he placed the blame on Democrats for not passing some kind of tax through reconciliation while they enjoyed control over the U.S. House, Senate and White House. Romney told Washington Post political reporter Leigh Ann Caldwell, suggesting the Democrats were concerned they might lose support among their own ranks during negotiations. Romney said the carbon tax is sometimes framed as just a way for the government to make money, an assertion he pushed back on Tuesday, calling the policy a “massive incentive for the private sector to innovate.” A carbon tax is typically defined as a government fee that companies must pay for each ton of greenhouse gas they emit. A number of carbon tax or cap-and-trade bills have been introduced at the federal level in recent years, but support has been hard to come by in the Republican Party, especially among free-market conservatives. Some Republicans have suggested they could be on board, including North Dakota Sen. Kevin Cramer. Earlier this year, Cramer tried to pick up support among his GOP colleagues for taxing carbon-intensive goods from China and Russia,  it as an “America First energy policy.” Romney thinks he can find some conservatives to back a carbon tax — but not a lot. “I don’t need a lot, because I think we can get a lot of Democrats and I think we can get some Republicans,” he said. “But we got to be honest with people because my colleagues correctly point out that a lot of what we’re doing sounds good, but won’t make a difference.” In the meantime, Romney says it’s not realistic to expect the U.S. to immediately phase out fossil fuels, and in the interim he wants to see more investments in nuclear power and natural gas. The Utah Republican voted against the Inflation Reduction Act, which passed along party lines with a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Kamala Harris. Proponents of the bill say it’s the single  step toward combating climate change in U.S. history, though Romney called it a “reckless taxing-and-spending spree” in the wake of its passage. On Thursday, he said there were parts of the  he supported, but he ultimately voted no because of the bill’s “long list of Democratic hopes.” “A good portion of the Inflation Reduction Act is associated with investments in new technology — I’m all in favor of those things. We could have done those on a bipartisan basis,” he said. When asked how he plans to address climate change heading into a divided Congress, Romney said more Republicans will be on board with measures that are targeted and take a global and prudent approach. The GOP’s skepticism over climate legislation often stems from spending, Romney says. “We often spend vast amounts of money to do things that make us feel good, and make the public think we’re really solving the problem, when in fact we’re not because the problem is global,” he said. What does Romney mean by thinking global? Investing in “low emitting and low cost” technologies that other countries with high emissions like Brazil, Indonesia, India and even China, can adopt, he says. Tackling the Great Salt Lake’s woes, at the local and federal level Thursday marked one week since the Senate unanimously passed the Saline Lake Ecosystems in the Great Basin States Program Act, which greenlights a study by the U.S. Geological Survey and a number of other federal, state and tribal entities, universities and environmental groups. Introduced by Romney and Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., the study seeks an action plan to assess, monitor and conserve saline lake ecosystems. During the webinar, Romney said saving the Great Salt Lake will require help at the federal and state level, and the first place government should look to incentivize change is agriculture. “We’re going to have to have technologies that are available to dramatically reduce the amount of water that goes into raising crops in our state and in surrounding states as well. Romney also said individuals should take some responsibility — “We have a lot of lawns in Utah, I have a big lawn in Utah, I shouldn’t.” He didn’t rule out the idea of building a pipeline from the ocean, a proposal that took a step closer to reality this summer with the . The bill would set aside $10 million to authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to study the feasibility of a 700-plus-mile . The proposal has already received  from some scientists and environmental groups. On Tuesday, Mendenhall called Utah’s capital city the “tip of the spear” in the state and much of the West, for water conservation efforts. “Taking on the challenge isn’t new to us ... that was already part of our culture here locally in Salt Lake City,” she said. Mendenhall said the Utah Legislature’s focus on the Great Salt Lake during the last session was commendable, and she hopes to see that momentum continue this February. “I think it’s an issue that they’re going to take up in about 42 days when their session begins again, because the solution simply isn’t found yet,” she said.

Strategic Feasibility: The Search for a Robust BI Coalition. When thinking about political feasibility, we customarily have some form of strategic feasibility in mind. Political entrepreneurs engaging in all sorts of strategic interventions to build a political coalition enabling the legislation and subsequent implementation of a policy proposal has indeed become one of the hallmarks of modern politics (Sabbatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993). In a very real sense, coalition building constitutes the building block of successful policy advocacy in present-day democracy. Despite this centrality of coalition building, the literature on BI is surprisingly void of systematic discussion of the political strategies required to securing an enduring BI coalition. In this section, we briefly examine a key challenge affecting the strategic feasibility of BI. 2 When challenged about the political feasibility of BI, its advocates typically refer to numerous instances of individual politicians, political Table 2.1 Typology of political feasibility Prospective constraints (“achievability”) Retrospective constraints (“viability”) Discrete agency A. Strategic feasibility B. Institutional feasibility Diffuse agency C. Psychological feasibility D. Behavioral feasibility parties, social movements, or interest groups (e.g., trade unions) on record as supportive of BI. This response rapidly takes the form of a simple numbers game, in which the level of support for BI can be read— more or less directly—off the instances of expressed support elicited from such individuals, associations, or organizations. The idea that increased expressed support for BI from a variety of social and political actors is directly conducive to building a sustained political coalition is flawed, however. The reason is that not all instances of expressed support for a policy imply a sustained commitment to promoting this policy. It is one thing for a social or political agent to vocally express a preference in favor of BI, quite a different matter to actively canvass support amongst constituents, party members, or like-minded associations and groups; build a shared platform across political factions; utilize scarce political resources (money, time, and above all political capital) to further the cause; bargain and possibly compromise on other political goals; and so on. Expressed support without either the commitment or the capacity to engage in the necessary political action to build a sustainable coalition around the policy of granting each citizen an unconditional BI is “cheap”: it seems of little practical worth to BI advocates.

One might object to this overly pessimistic analysis on the grounds that expressed support from currently marginalized individuals or groups should not be so lightly dismissed. After all, those groups may one day be in a position to genuinely effectuate policy influence, at which point BI support pays off in real terms. However, this argument hinges on the view that political support is sticky, and that political factions who have once expressly supported BI would continue doing so when their power position improves. Unfortunately, there is little reason to think that groups that move up on the political ladder will necessarily sustain their support for BI. For, in the absence of policy responsibility, one’s support for BI is cheap in a second relevant sense: there are few political costs associated with supporting BI in an environment in which one is never put in the position of having to defend one’s support against a skeptical—at times even hostile—political base, let alone the electorate. This is even more the case when we consider that furthering the case for BI means precious political capital must be spent at the expense of other political objectives. The political opportunity cost of supporting BI once one has achieved a position of policy responsibility may simply prove too high to be politically sustainable. Thus, we likely find the very same parties or politicians who support BI while in opposition suddenly ditching their support when achieving office, typically as part of a governing coalition. In addition, we may plausibly expect a similar scenario in relation to trade unions who become more powerful, in particular given their internal division about BI because of the strong laborist philosophy inherent to most unions. The fact that cheap political support for BI may not be sufficiently robust to survive a move of its supporters into a position of policy responsibility is not the only problem, however. Worse still, some instances of political support for BI may even be counterproductive as support from one particular faction or group may prevent others from endorsing the same policy. Because political factions generally use identification with policy positions as an instrument to differentiate themselves from their (internal or external) political competitors, support for BI from faction X may prevent faction Y from endorsing a policy that would otherwise naturally fit their political profile. There exists a “first mover disadvantage” to BI being associated with a political faction that is unable to move it up on the policy agenda, when precisely this association prevents more powerful individuals or groups from offering valuable support. In this case, expressed support is not just cheap but represents a real cost in terms of advancing the case for BI. In many countries (e.g., Ireland, Namibia) BI is promoted by groups with a strong religious affiliation, which may well prevent nonconfessional social movements or associations from expressing support. Similarly, BI advocates who adopt a liberal entrepreneurial perspective (e.g., Vivant in Belgium or Götz Werner in Germany) may find it difficult to curry favor with factions endorsing strong socialist values. Initial effects of the identification of BI with one specific faction, combined with the “reactive reluctance” of other factions to support the policy because of such political identification, may produce a form of path dependency that causes BI to be marginalized by association.

As Congress turns its attention to the 2023 Farm Bill, climate and conservation are among the top issues. Republicans who have generally opposed provisions aimed at addressing climate change have signaled their concern over new mandatory programs, but have signaled openness to voluntary programs. The 2023 Farm Bill should look to bolster existing incentive programs that currently lack necessary funding and adequate support for farmers. An obvious answer for both addressing climate concerns and promoting the growth of American farms is the USDA’s agroforestry program.

A former chair of the House Agriculture Committee is optimistic that Congress will pass the next farm bill on-time. Representative Frank Lucas, an Oklahoma Republican, says he believes it is possible to finish the 2023 Farm Bill in 2023. Lucas; “One of the most important things we had to do was pass a piece of legislation dealing not only with the debt ceiling but setting spending levels for the next few years. The allocation process in the House and Senate is going on. As we wait for those final numbers in the House, Chairman Thompson is now moving us in the direction of not just hearing here in D.C., but also field hearings around the country laying the groundwork.” Lucas says there are just a few weeks left to legislate in the current fiscal year, but says the Farm Bill is on track. “I’m an international optimist, but we only have a few weeks left in June to legislate, there’s a few weeks in July, the traditional August work period back home, and that brings us around to September, and we are starting to get down towards the end of the year,” according to Lucas. “So, don’t be surprised, as has been the case in almost all the farm bills in recent history, if we wind up with an extension, but we are now on track.”

With Congress raising the debt ceiling and dealing with concerns about work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in June, some common sticking points that historically have kept a farm bill from timely passage appear to have been cleared up, a former long-time agriculture policymaker says. “Everything has been positive so far as far as the obstacles,” explained Collin Peterson. The current farm bill expires on Sept. 30, though it’s far from unusual for a new bill to be in place on the deadline. In fact, Peterson said there is no particular reason to have a new bill passed when the old version expires. Instead, if the House and Senate can’t reach an agreement by the end of the year, they could vote to extend the existing bill. “Nothing becomes critical on Oct. 1,” he said. Peterson served 15 terms in the U.S. House, representing Minnesota’s 7th District, and much of that time was spent in leadership on the House Agriculture Committee. He played a major role in crafting five farm bills during those years. After losing a re-election bid in 2020 , he helped form the Midwest Council on Agriculture , of which Northarvest Bean Growers Association is a member. The Midwest Council on Agriculture is a coalition of members from across the agriculture industry in 12 states: Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin. The purpose of the council is to provide a united voice for agriculture out of the region to policymakers. Peterson and former USDA Undersecretary Bill Northey, of Iowa, modeled the council after Southwest Council on Agribusiness and the Delta Council, which helped propel the needs of their members to Congress. In mid-June, Peterson was gearing up for a trip to Washington, D.C., later in the month to meet with ag committee leaders and offer his advice. Being out of Congress has freed him up to give his “legitimate advice” rather than worrying as much about getting people from across the country on board with a unified plan. “I think I’m almost doing more good on the outside,” he said. A money problem Peterson said a few obstacles remain in getting a bipartisan farm bill completed. While the SNAP issues and debt ceiling conversations should be cleared up, he said there remain House members “agitating” for change. But he doesn’t think they have as much power as they act like. “People in charge of committees say SNAP and work requirements are settled and won’t be brought up again,” he said. But even with that major hurdle cleared, others remain. The big one is a lack of money. “Every day, another group is looking for additional money,” Peterson said. “Right now, there is no additional money.” It’s unlikely that Republicans would agree to a tax increase and equally unlikely that lawmakers would cut spending in another area to put more into the farm bill, he said. That means putting more money into programs in one part of the farm bill likely would come at the expense of other parts of the farm bill. A substantial amount of funding went into conservation programs through the Inflation Reduction Act, and the Biden administration’s Climate Smart programs were put in place through the Commodity Credit Corporation. Some opponents of the increased funding would like to see cuts in those areas to fund other things in the farm bill, Peterson said, but he said that doesn’t seem like something Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who chairs the Senate Ag Committee, would support. “Stabenow is not going to stand for that,” Peterson said, noting that millions of dollars already have gone out in grants for the conservation programs, and canceling those would “set off alarms” in agriculture. “Anybody that’s anybody in agriculture has gotten a grant.” That lack of money means farm groups might not get all of the things they want out of the new bill. But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t still advocate for themselves and their needs. “They should maintain their relationship with their elected officials,” he said. It’s not the job of farm groups to figure out how to come up with the money; it’s their job to say what they need for their members to be successful, even if they know the money might not be there right now. “The people on the committee can sort that out,” he said. He recommends farmers and farm groups engage at town hall meetings with lawmakers and reach out to members on the House and Senate Ag Committees. The Northarvest Bean Growers Association was among a number of farm groups that sponsored farm bill listening sessions across North Dakota in the spring. The sessions were an opportunity for farmers to tell farm groups what mattered to them, including the kinds of issues they are having on their farms that might be helped by policy changes. Protecting the farm bill From the overall perspective of the Midwest Council on Agriculture, Peterson said the existing farm bill is a good framework. “We want to protect what’s there. That works pretty well for Midwest agriculture,” he said, noting agriculture in other areas, including the South and West, have legitimate concerns about things like low reference prices for prominent crops. Crop insurance is the most important thing to protect, in his perspective. Ideas that could undermine the existing crop insurance program include payment limitations on subsidies and tying crop insurance to things like conservation. But Peterson said the program could use some help in the area of affordability for places with regular weather instability — including North Dakota and northern Minnesota. Somewhere like Iowa, farmers can buy 95% protection on corn at a “pretty reasonable amount.” “But in North Dakota, you really can’t afford to go above 75%,” he said. Improving the ability to buy coverage in the Dakotas and Minnesota, as well as places like west Texas and Oklahoma, without undermining the overall structure of the program, would be welcome changes, Peterson said. “If we did this, it would maybe eliminate the need for ad hoc disaster (programs),” he said, noting that it’s unlikely that such programs would ever completely end because of unexpected situations. However, Peterson said flexibility remains key. “We’re not locking ourselves into anything until we see what we’re working with here. Is there more money? Is there not more money?” he said. And then, as ever with the farm bill, it’s a matter of getting everyone on the same page.

“This bill is not going to get done if it’s not bipartisan,” he said.