Photograph by Ryan Anson/Bloomberg

Immigrant workers package freshly-picked organic persimmons in Santa Cruz, California.

Bill Landreth bought a second tractor as Berries by Bill Inc. sold more melons, sweet corn and strawberries.

He also expanded to 200 the acreage of his Newport, Arkansas, farm devoted to the fruits and vegetables, though that’s where the growth will end. After that, he runs out of workers.

“We could do more, but I’m not sure we could harvest more because of the labor,” Landreth said as his tractor moved slowly through plowed rows with workers following behind, transplanting seedlings into freshly turned earth.

Landreth and other farmers in Arkansas, the nation’s 15th-biggest crop-producing state, say they would like to take advantage of the push by advocates such first lady Michele Obama and health professionals to get Americans to eat more fruits and vegetables. Those crops take more workers to plant and harvest.

That has him watching debate on immigration that resumes today in Congress, hoping for relief. Farmworker visas were among the final details resolved last month in bipartisan negotiations among a group of U.S. senators on a compromise bill. In the House, lawmakers backed a larger guest-worker program in a plan late last month.

See the full report at Bloomberg.com.

Original post is Too Few Hands for Hand-Picked Fruit? by Political Capital.

Photograph by Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg

A tractor cuts down corn in a field designated as zero yield on a farm in Vigo County near Terre Haute, Indiana.

Written with Derek Wallbank

The House Agriculture Committee canceled tentative plans to draft a new farm bill after its top Democrat sought a commitment that the legislation will be considered by the full chamber, according to committee leaders.

“There’s going to be no markup in the foreseeable future without it,” Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota said today in an interview. Peterson had said the committee would meet on Feb. 27, and that “is off.”

The timing of a meeting of the committee, which may occur as lawmakers debate raising the federal debt ceiling, also comes into play, Chairman Frank Lucas, an Oklahoma Republican, said today in an interview. Lucas, who hasn’t confirmed a Feb. 27 meeting, had said a session could happen as early as late February.

U.S. agricultural law that governs food aid to poor families as well as crop subsidies to farmers this week was extended to Sept. 30 as part of the congressional tax and spending settlement. The law approved in 2008 lapsed last year, triggering rules dating to 1949 that would have pushed up milk prices.

Read the full story here.

Original post is House Panel Scraps Draft Farm Bill by Political Capital.

Photograph by Daniel Acker/Bloomberg

Dairy cows stand in the milking parlor at a farm in Illinois.

The National Milk Producers Federation isn’t very happy about the nine-month extension of current farm policy included in the Senate-passed version of the budget deal, calling it “a devastating blow to the nation’s dairy farmers.”

“After months of inaction, the plan that passed overnight as part of the fiscal cliff package amounts to shoving farmers over the dairy cliff without providing any safety net below,” Jerry Kozak, the trade association’s president and chief executive officer, said in a statement today.

He called the agriculture  provision, included at the request of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, “little more than a New Year’s Day, hair-of-the-dog stab at temporarily putting off decisions that should have been made in 2012 about how to move farm policy forward, not offer more of the same.”

The 2008 law setting agriculture policy lapsed in September after Congress wasn’t able to pass a new five-year bill. Without current controlling policy, agriculture programs revert to rules dating to 1949 that have served as the basis of  all subsequent legislation. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has said that the pricing policy mandated by those rules could result in a doubling of milk prices.

Kozak’s group had backed a draft bill agreed to over the weekend by the leaders of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees. It would have extended the expired farm law through Sept. 30, provided disaster aid for producers affected by this year’s drought and made changes to milk policy, including managing supply partly by setting production limits for farmers
who enroll in a market-stabilization program.

In a statement after the Senate vote, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat, said that while she had voted for the legislation, McConnell’s extension “reforms nothing, provides no deficit reduction, and hurts many areas of our agriculture economy.” She said her committee would begin work on a farm bill after the 113th Congress convenes Jan. 3.

“We’re starting 2013 on a bad note,” Kozak said in his statement.

From Bloomberg Government’s Congresstracker blog.

Original post is Milk Producers: Congress Still Pushing Farmers Over Cliff by Political Capital.

Without a new farm bill, old legislation would gradually take effect in 2013, beginning with dairy programs in January. Photograph by Paul Sisul

The top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee says the $1-trillion agriculture bill the panel approved in July is out of his hands — and if milk prices double next year because Congress doesn’t act, it has only itself to blame.

“The irony of their screwing around here is that they could cost taxpayers an incredible amount of money,” should House leaders not bring a five-year farm bill to the floor during the current lame-duck session, Rep. Collin Peterson said. The Minnesota Democrat was interviewed today on “AgriTalk,” a syndicated radio program.

Without a new farm bill — the old one expired Sept. 30 — agriculture programs revert to a 1949 law, which requires massive government price-setting that would dramatically increase the prices of wheat, cotton and other agricultural products. Milk, for example, would be required to sell at $39.53 per hundred pounds, based on current market prices, almost double the level on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

Peterson said the bill is out of the Agriculture Committee’s control, and that he hasn’t spoken with the panel chairman, Republican Frank Lucas of Oklahoma, since September.

He said the farm bill probably will proceed as part of the talks on how to resolve the so-called fiscal cliff, the $607 billion of tax increases and spending cuts that will take effect next year without congressional action.

The eventual legislation “is going to be a top-down deal,” Peterson said. “They’re going to work it out between the president and the leaders, and they’re going to send it down to us.”

The Senate in June passed a five-year bill, which sets farm policy and funds U.S. Department of Agriculture programs including food stamps and crop subsidies. While the House Agriculture Committee approved its version of the law in July, it was never considered by the full House. Both plans would cost roughly $100 billion annually, or a trillion dollars if scored over a decade. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor last month promised to bring the stalled legislation to the House floor during the lame-duck congressional session that began this week.

Without a new bill or an extension of the ex1949-designed programs would gradually take effect in 2013, beginning with dairy programs in January and affecting other crops as their growing seasons get under way, unless the USDA comes up with alternative ways to administer programs.

Farmers would prefer the certainty of a five-year farm bill to any extension that may be proposed as a stop-gap measure, Peterson said. Still, dairy farmers, especially in areas of the country experiencing surpluses, wouldn’t be crying over expensive milk.

“Thirty-eight dollar milk is a problem” for consumers, he said. “But for the California guys who are in trouble, if they get three, four months of $38 milk, it might save them.”

Original post is Farm Bill Stalemate: No Crying Over Doubled Milk Prices Next Year by Political Capital.

Photograph by Emil Wamsteker/Bloomberg

Organic produce at a Whole Foods Market in Edgewater, New Jersey.

Consumers who buy organic food and help fatten the coffers of grocers such as Whole Foods Market Inc. have a new tool to rate lawmakers on food issues.

Food Policy Action, which includes as partners Stonyfield Farms Inc., Environmental Working Group, Oxfam America, the Humane Society of the U.S. and Bread for the World, released its first National Food Policy Scorecard, tracking members of Congress based of their votes on issues from cuts to food stamps to the pending 2012 farm-policy bill.

Interest in food issues beyond Farm Belt states is sincere, growing and important as spending on subsidies increases and the U.S. and world population grows, says David Beckmann, head of Washington-based Bread for the World. The idea is to give those voters tools to help make choices, making food a bigger campaign issues in congressional elections.

“We’re trying to translate a very powerful public concern about healthy, environmentally friendly, socially just food into voter action,” he says. Large agribusinesses “have been able to have more influence on global food and farm policy for a long time, so all the groups that represent everyone else need to come together to say we can do better.”

The scorecard of members of Congress gave perfect scores to 50, all Democrats except Senator Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut independent. Three Republican lawmakers scored zero.

Among leaders of the Agriculture committees, Senate chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat, rated 61 and House ranking Democrat Collin Peterson of Minnesota received a 57. Republican Reo, Frank Lucas of Oklahoma, chairman of the House panel, scored 36, and Pat Roberts of Kansas, senior Republican on the Senate panel, had 17.

Original post is Congress: A Food Policy Scorecard by Political Capital.

Photograph by Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

Mitt Romney on the James Koch Farm in Van Meter, Iowa, on October 9, 2012.

Rural voters have been a Republican bastion for at least a generation, with Democrats trying to at least be competitive so small-town voters don’t offset their advantage in cities.

A new poll suggests they may not be competitive enough.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has opened up a 22-point advantage among rural voters in swing states, according to a poll released today by the National Rural Assembly, a group of largely left-leaning, prairie populist groups. The poll, funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, holds bipartisan credentials — it’s conducted by Democratic pollster Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and designed by Republican firm North Star Opinion Research.

And it’s not good news for President Barack Obama.

Romney’s margin among voters in nine swing states who don’t live in metropolitan areas increased to 59 percent to 37 percent in the survey of 600 voters conducted Oct. 9-11, from a 54 percent to 40 percent margin in a similar poll by the group done in mid-September, a gain of 8 percentage points for the Republican.

In 2008, Obama lost rural areas in 13 swing states by only 2 percentage points.

His collapse in rural areas this time around complicates his bid for re-election, said Dan Judy of North Star.

“It’s fair to say his lead among these rural voters is what’s helping him in swing states overall,” Judy said.

On topics including values, the economy, Medicare and Social Security, the middle class and the federal deficit, Romney held advantages of at least 20 percentage points. The only topics on which Obama was close were women’s issues and health care, where Romney held 2- and 3-point leads. Obama had led on women’s issues by 5 points in the September poll.

“We’re seeing a major shift to Governor Romney among these voters, and that’s going a long way toward tightening the presidential race,” said Dee Davis, president of the Center for Rural Strategies, which commissioned the poll. The Whitesburg, Kentucky-based organization is part of the National Rural Assembly.

The states included in the poll were Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Original post is Romney Rolls in Rural Vote That May Provide Swing-State Margins by Political Capital.

Photographer: Emile Wamsteker/Bloomberg

Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) and food stamps are accepted at the Dollar General Corp. store in Saddle Brook, New Jersey in Dec., 2011.

While the lowest unemployment rate of President Barack Obama’s tenure dominated weekend economic news, a less-welcome statistic for the White House — a record number 0f food-stamp recipients — slipped by with barely a notice.

About 46.68 million Americans received food stamps in July, the government said in a report released late on Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend, a traditional time for dumping bad news. The report for July, the most recent month that data was available, showed participation up by 11,532 from June and 2.9 percent higher than a year earlier.

The number rose partly because of weather disasters in Ohio, Maryland and West Virginia, the USDA said. In essence, it was little changed from the previous month or even the recent past, since participation — more than one in seven Americans — has topped 46 million since September 2011.

Still, any jump in food-stamp rolls pushes a button with Republicans who argue hat the program breeds dependency and its growth shows both an unhealthy economy and wasteful spending.

“When the president took office, 32 million people on food stamps — 47 million on food stamps today,” Republican Mitt Romney said in last week’s presidential debate. “Going forward with the status quo is not going to cut it for the American people who are struggling.”

Monthly spending on food stamps in July reached $6.26 billion, also a record and 2.9 percent more than a year earlier.

The program’s cost more than doubled in four years to a record $75.7 billion in the 12 months ended Sept. 30, 2011, and is the USDA’s biggest annual expense.

A USDA spokesman was unable to provide comment on the timing of the report, when contacted on the federal Columbus Day holiday. The report normally comes early in the month, although there is no set date or time.

Original post is Food-Stamp Record: Quiet Report by Political Capital.

Photograph by Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

Drought stricken corn on the McIntosh farm in Missouri Valley, Iowa, on August 13, 2012.

Struck by the worst drought in more than a half-century and the focus of swing-state campaigning, Iowa is getting plenty of attention from politicians. President Barack Obama concludes a three-day trip in the state tomorrow. Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the newly-named Republican vice-presidential candidate, stopped by the Iowa State Fair earlier this week.

Some residents, however, would prefer the politicians tend to their chores in Washington, such as passing a new farm bill, rather than barnstorming about the state with their hands out for votes.

“Come on, let’s get it done,” said Craig Hill, the president of the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation said in an interview at the fair in Des Moines. “There’s a lot of frustration.”

A program in the current farm bill to aid livestock producers expired last year. The U.S. Senate and the House Agriculture Committee have approved bills to replace the current law, both of which which contain livestock-relief provisions. House Republican leaders have not set a vote on their legislation.

“They’re not thinking about farmers. They’re thinking about politics,” said Ed Lapke, 70, who raises corn and soybeans near Dunlap, Iowa, about 100 miles west of Des Moines, and whose granddaughter had just won recognition for raising the best Charolais breeding heifer at the fair.

The House on Aug. 2 approved a $383 million stopgap measure to reinstate the livestock aid, while the Senate took no action. The current agriculture law, passed in 2008, expires in September.

“We have a lot of finger-pointing in Washington, there isn’t a lot of problem-solving,” said Terry Branstad, the Republican governor of the state. Some federal actions, such as opening acreage for grazing on lands set aside for conservation, have been helpful, he said. Still, more could be done, such as enacting livestock assistance, he said.

Iowa, the leading U.S. producer of corn, soybeans, pork and ethanol, narrowly favored George W. Bush in 2004 and jump-started Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008 before picking him over John McCain that November.

Obama leads Romney 45.3 percent to 44.3 percent in an average of four state polls since May compiled by the website Real Clear Politics.

One in six Iowa jobs is tied to agriculture, according to a 2009 study by Iowa State University economist Dan Otto. Punishing heat is withering the farms that have helped Iowa weather the worst of the recession. This year, 51 percent of the state’s corn crop was in poor or worse condition as of Aug. 12, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said this week.

At this point in the growing season, little can be done to improve the crop, Hill said. “Rain right now doesn’t matter” for corn, he said.

The drought is decreasing income for farmers, said Andy Long, 32, who raises corn, soybeans and cattle outside Ottumwa, Iowa, about 70 miles southeast of Des Moines.

“The hay we usually bale isn’t there, and the farmers we bale it for don’t want to pay for it, so they’re selling their cattle,” Long said. Still, he isn’t looking for, or expecting, much aid: Making ends meet and raising a family leave little time for thinking about politics, anyway, said Long.

“There’s so much to do,” he said. “I’ve kind of lost interest in it.”

Margaret Talev contributed to this post

Original post is At State Fair, Iowans Wish Candidates Had Stayed in Washington by Political Capital.