Now
Fair
74°
High
88°
Low
55°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Politics
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

McCain, Obama differ on farm policies

Comments 26 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By MIKE GLOVER / The Associated Press

Wednesday, Aug 06, 2008 - 10:49:07 am CDT

Republican presidential candidate John McCain opposes the $300 billion farm bill and subsidies for ethanol, positions that both supporters and opponents say might cost him votes he needs in the upper Midwest this November.

His Democratic rival, Barack Obama, is making a more traditional regional pitch: He favors the farm bill approved by Congress this year and subsidies for the Midwest-based ethanol industry. McCain instead has promised to open new markets abroad for farmers to export their commodities.

In his position papers, McCain opposes farm subsidies only for those with incomes of more than $250,000 and a net worth above $2 million. But he’s gone further on the stump.

Story Photo
A look at McCain, Obama farm policies



Major farm policies advanced by presidential rivals John McCain and Barack Obama:

McCAIN

-Opposed a $300 billion farm bill approved by Congress this year over President Bush’s veto. Opposes subsidies to divert corn into ethanol production.

-Supports trade expansion through negotiations “to lower trade barriers, decrease trade-distorting subsidies and stabilize an affordable food supply for all nations.”

-Calls for “reasonable reforms to our crop insurance program and our system of countercyclical and direct aid payments.”

-Would cap subsidies to farmers who have adjusted gross income of $250,000 or more, while providing small farmers with “a reasonable safety net.”

-Pledges to press Agriculture Department officials to research drought-resistant and higher-yield crops.

-Supports indexing the food stamp program “to reflect the current cost of living.”

-Would provide “marketing tools” for the fruit and vegetable industries.

OBAMA

-Supports the farm bill, though he said he favored tighter payment limits and a ban on ownership of livestock by meatpackers.

-Calls for spending $150 billion over 10 years for alternative energy sources such as solar and wind as well as advanced biofuels.

-Backs a renewable fuels standard that encourages use of ethanol and other advanced biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol produced from switchgrass and wood chips. Wants a goal of producing 2 billion gallons of advanced biofuels by 2013.

-Voted for a measure giving tax breaks to wind energy developments, credited for 45 percent growth in the industry last year. Has set a goal of 25 percent of the nation’s electrical production coming from renewable sources by 2025.

-Would require petroleum makers to reduce the carbon content of fuel by 1 percent a year beginning in 2010 through the use of alternative fuels.

“I don’t support agricultural subsidies no matter where they are,” McCain said at a recent appearance in Wisconsin. “The farm bill, $300 billion, is something America simply can’t afford.”

McCain later described the measure, which is very popular throughout the Midwest, as “a $300 billion, bloated, pork-barrel-laden bill” because of subsidies for industries like ethanol.

It’s not a stand that pleases Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa.

“I would not advise him to take that position,” Grassley said. “For sure, he can’t lose Missouri and that’s in the upper Midwest. Could he lose Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin and still be elected president? Yes, but I wouldn’t advise him to have that strategy.”

Grassley, a conservative Republican, and his Senate colleague from Iowa, liberal Democrat Tom Harkin, have achieved enduring success in this state largely by mastering the politics of farm issues. Harkin chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, which wrote the new farm legislation.

“I don’t see any scenario in which McCain can get to the White House without carrying some upper Midwestern states,” said Harkin, an Obama backer. “I’ve never really understood in all my years why Sen. McCain has gone out of his way to speak against and vote against policies that are important to the upper Midwest.”

There’s a history of close elections in the region. President Bush carried Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota and South Dakota in 2004, earning 35 electoral votes. But his Democratic opponent, John Kerry, prevailed in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois, giving him 41 electoral votes.

Veteran GOP strategist Gentry Collins said McCain can defend his record on farm issues, including opposing “corporate welfare” for big operations, but he said there’s more at work.

“The upper Midwest is crucial in this election, and Midwestern voters value authenticity. They value experience,” Collins said. “I don’t think agricultural issues are the only issues Midwestern voters care about. There are some bigger-picture issues, broader issues where he’s strong.”

But on another important issue to Midwesterners, McCain opposed a tax break for developing wind power. Obama supported the tax break.

“We’re employing close to 2,000 people right now in Iowa in the wind energy industry,” Harkin said.

McCain has been most outspoken on ethanol subsidies, and that has Republicans worried in Iowa, the nation’s biggest producer of the fuel. Other top ethanol producers include Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin and Missouri.

“It does challenge him in states like Iowa, the No. 1 ethanol state,” said Bill Northey, Iowa’s Republican agriculture secretary. “It does make it tougher to make the case.”

Drake University political science professor Dennis Goldford said McCain’s problem on farm issues reflects a deeper issue he faces as he’s courted conservative GOP activists, many of whom are deeply suspicious of him.

“He’s essentially reverting to standard Republican supply-side economics,” said Goldford. “That’s where he’s got a problem. He’s got to find his own voice and so far he hasn’t had a voice.”

Iowa Gov. Chet Culver, a Democrat who has campaigned for Obama, said he’s puzzled by McCain’s position. He points to other Republicans who have a different view.

“President Bush and I just had a good conversation about how critically important ethanol is, and how Iowa is positioned so well to lead the nation,” said Culver. “I have no idea why John McCain doesn’t support it. It hurts him in Indiana, and Missouri and Ohio, and it’s not the message right now that any of us want to hear.”

Obama has a modest lead in national polls, but electoral votes will decide the election. Obama is poised to do well on both coasts, while McCain is favored in the South and some parts of the West. That leaves the upper Midwest as a swing battleground.

“The Midwest is crucial in this campaign,” said Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, a Democrat and an early backer of Obama. “Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and perhaps Indiana are very important states. McCain is behind, and he’s in danger of falling further behind.”


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Politics > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
MP wrote on August 6, 2008 11:13 am:
" Here is a perfect example of how people in this state will vote against their own interests. This being an agricultural state, voters will overwhemlingly vote for McCain, while at the same time putting a man into office who will do nothing for them. Good job Nebraska!! "

 Bob wrote on August 6, 2008 11:24 am:
" There is sufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate that corn-based ethanol is a net-negative fuel, That is, it takes more than a gallon of other fuel to make a gallon of ethanol. Also, ethanol has less energy in a gallon than a gallon of gasoline, it has helped inflate the cost of food, it requires large amounts of water, it can not be delivered through pipelines because it is corrosive (I don't put it in my cars), etc. The advantages are its a cash cow to the farmers and developers who are raking off the federal and state subsidies. That is what our politicians do best - pandering for votes! Real solutions are not a priority. "

 taxpayer wrote on August 6, 2008 11:55 am:
" It would really help if our politicians would know what is in a bill before they vote or make comments as inacurate as these.
Total funding for 5 years is $289 billion and for 10 years is $608 billion. Of this amount 73% goes to food and nutrition programs. Only 9% goes to price supports and direct payments to farmers/producers.
Please media the the whole story. "

 Rey wrote on August 6, 2008 12:37 pm:
" Bob is wrong. E85 has never been a net-negative fuel as the big oil companies would like everyone to think. E85 does not affect the price of corn anywhere near as much as the cost of oil for transporation. You can still use corn after the starch is removed for the production of E85 and it is used for a lot of health foods. At the most E85 adds four percent to the cost of corn, the fact are there if you chose to look. E85 can also be made from other things besides corn, certain grasses, different sugars, etc. When compared to growing nothing it does take more water for corn but just how much land was converted from nothing or from a crop that uses a lot less water? Stop pandering to the oil companies! Only people who stand to make a lot of money from oil or those who are uninformed oppose E85. "

 Jeff wrote on August 6, 2008 12:39 pm:
" The subsidy for Wind Farm development is a perfect example of how leadership in government can push things in the necessary direction, or, in the case of McCain, can continue to be a roadblock to actually making some changes away from fossil fuel based energy. I know of at least one investor who had plans for a huge wind farm in north central Nebraska, and it fell through based on negotiations on how to "sell" market the energy to the local electrical companies/power grid. This is where the government needs to step in and make things happening. It sounds like that won't really happen with McCain. It's also funny what we can afford and not afford. We can afford to take on overseas wars, and let them drag on for as long as necessary, but funding for low-income food supplies is too much to afford. The priorities of these candidates are quite clear to me. "

 bc wrote on August 6, 2008 12:40 pm:
" Bob-from what I read in this article Obama is speaking of "real solutions" His support of ethanol is not corn-based but cellulosic, which does have sufficient scientific evidence to be a viable alternative to oil. Taxpayer-My understanding of this article was not-where does the money go, but which one of the two candidates supports agri-business. Which leads me to my total agreement with MP on this one-time and time again we see not only Nebraska voting against their economic interests but other states as well-Ohio being the one that stands out the most. "

 Knob wrote on August 6, 2008 12:56 pm:
" Bob, the jury is out on ethanol's ability to replace gasoline, but "a gallon of other fuel to make a gallon of ethanol"?!? What other fuel? Gasoline? Diesel? Nitromethane?
I don't think the ethanol producers are burning gasoline or diesel to create ethanol. They are using electricity which can be generated with nuclear or coal, or renewable energy sources like water or wind power. None of those energy sources can currently be used in a moving vehicle. So you might look at ethanol as a means of converting those energies into something that IS usable for a moving vehicle.

Regarding McCain’s opposition to the Agriculture Bill - Let’s face it, agriculture has always been and currently is the backbone of Nebraska’s economy. Anything that helps agriculture helps Nebraska. As a citizen of Nebraska or any state whose economy is dominated by agriculture, a vote for McCain is against your financial best interests. "

 taxpayer wrote on August 6, 2008 2:37 pm:
" bc you are correct, I do not have a canidate to vote for. One will tax me to death and the other does not and never has supported agricultural interest. "

 gnu wrote on August 6, 2008 2:55 pm:
" I am a flaming liberal but agree with McCain that farmers who make $250,000 shouldn't get subsidies. Why should Ted Turner be getting farm subsidies? Under the farm bill, he is. "

 ted wrote on August 6, 2008 4:28 pm:
" How can anyone trust Obama? He supported federal campaign finance then reneged on his promise. He opposed offshore drilling, now he will accept some of it. He opposed the surge in Iraq, now that it worked he supports the military. He opposed the Florida and Michigan Democrat primaries, now he wants to accept the delegates. He is a 2 faced liar. "

 Bob wrote on August 6, 2008 4:56 pm:
" A two faced liar, like someone who promises not to raise taxes then does. Neither of these canidates is perfect and pretending that either one is is not very realistic. I would imagine that subsidies are a very important issue for most working farmers. This will be interesting to say the least... "

 Oh Ted... wrote on August 6, 2008 5:26 pm:
" Politicians change their minds all the time. It would be horrible if they didn't. But if you're going to make decisions based on "flip-flops" you may be shocked to find the list of McCain's recent flops. Many many many many many flip flops on nearly everything he could flop. Far more than Obama. "

 Zoomie wrote on August 6, 2008 6:23 pm:
" Ted - you need to check your "facts". 1) Yes, Obama has flip-flopped on offshore drilling. But perhaps you didn't notice, so did McCain, who opposed it until March of this year (and got almost $1mil in oil company donations within 5 days of flipping). 2) Obama never flipped on campaign finance, as he only promised to look into it if he could reach agreement with the GOP candidate. But perhaps you missed the fact McCain signed a legally binding agreement to use public primary financing, got several million dollars in benefits from it (loan guarantee, automatic inclusion on two states' primary ballot without having to collect thousands of signatures), and then when donations picked up he reneged on his contract and refused to abide by limits, even after the FEC told him he was violating Federal law (do you prefer a candidate who reneges on a promise, or one who reneges on a promise AND a legal contract?). 3) Support or opposition to the surge has nothing to do with supporting the troops, so stop conflating the two issues. He opposed the surge, and as yet it still hasn't worked (success as defined by Bush was political improvement in Iraq; today, they called off trying to reach agreement on the fall elections and are putting off the elections until next spring). On the other hand, he has voted to equip the troops with necessary equipment (McCain voted against) and he voted for the Webb GI Bill (McCain didn't even show up to vote, but opposed the Bill). So who supports the troops? 4) FL and MI Dem parties signed agreements to fix their primary dates, then violated the agreement knowing there would be punishment. Because the violated the rules, no Dem candidate was supposed to campaign there. Obama obeyed those rules, Hillary didn't (in fact, she was the only Dem candidate to get her name on the MI ballot). Only reason Obama is saying seat them now is it just doesn't matter. He has the nomination with or without their votes. But I guess if your preferred party naturally is the one that refuses to obey laws, I guess you'd have a problem with the candidate who actually obeyed rules and agreements. "

 Nina wrote on August 6, 2008 6:39 pm:
" McCain's stance is likely because his wife is so rich he knows he'll never have to worry if he can afford food. The farm program, with the bulk of it supporting the school lunch program, needs to proceed just like the tax cuts - with the ones at the bottom and middle having more chance for help, and cutting back financial assistance on the big corporations. This is the only way for America's 'cheap food policy' to continue. Obama's plan would help even small farmers, so would be the better solution not only to lessening reliance on the farm program, but making payments for farmers to leave land idle unnecessary for the most part., thereby satisfying both those who favor a program and those who would like to end the model we have now. No matter which side of the issue you're on, how could you disagree? McCain's statement sounds like bluster of someone who hasn't thought through the ramifications of what he proposes, and doesn't understand the subject. "

 NE farmer wrote on August 6, 2008 6:50 pm:
" Yep, the blue hairs will again vote for Republican in this state. They continue to be uneducated on what party and what candidate really is trying to help Nebraska and their interests. I for one did the same thing 8 years ago and voted for Bush the first time I voted cause that is what my parents voted for. However, we all realized in 2004 and now in 2008 who is really trying to support farmers and this agricultural based state. Many people may be against farmers and the farm bill in this state because they think it doesn't effect them. But when you tighten the belt on a $12 billion dollar economic impact that has huge indirect effects across the entire Nebraska economy.

Think for a second people on your vote. Because you might be out of a job soon if you don't "

 wow wrote on August 6, 2008 7:50 pm:
" Some times it is good to not have programs that are give aways. I am with McCain on this one and I use to be a democrat. I will support McCain as he has the most common sense. "

 Terri wrote on August 6, 2008 8:52 pm:
" Quite a difference between Rey and Bob, Bob has his facts correct and is not far from the EU position. It doesn't take a PhD to do the simple math, if a fourth of corn production is taken from the food chain supply, costs of beef, dairy, pork, corn oil and corn syrup will go up. Ethanol requires energy to separate ethanol from water, that is essentially boiling off the ethanol. Bob must be an engineer, a scientist, or an accountant...because his facts and figures are realtiy. "

 Terri and Bob wrote on August 6, 2008 10:12 pm:
" are cornfused about taking food from corn by making ethanol. What on earth do you think is done with the corn "by-product"? It is fed to cattle and the cattle producers absolutely love it as the alternative to unprocessed whole corn. The corn bushels used for ethanol production are absolutely still in the food chain and do not have an inflationary impact on food prices because they are processed and "removed" from the food supply.. Any other assumption and calcultion is myth. "

 hollister wrote on August 6, 2008 10:33 pm:
" So far nobody has mentioned the enormous amount of human blood wasted to attempt to procure the dwindling supplies of petroleum. Bob, please show facts to back up your wild-eyed claims. "

 Farmer wrote on August 7, 2008 8:02 am:
" If farmers who make $250,000 should not get subsidies (aka tax breaks) then why should businesses like google, the scott brothers development, ebay and all other companies get tax increment financing and various other tax breaks?!?! Everyone needs to realize that subsidies are just another form of a tax break that oil companies and pretty much every large business out there receives. I'm a farmer and after some years I do make that much or more, but other years I'm in the negative and it ends up balancing out with the huge risks farmers take with the weather, high insurance, seed prices and fuel prices. Seed prices alone are expected to go up over 25% next year. I know this because I have to get my order in for next years seed by November. "

 Yogi wrote on August 7, 2008 9:05 am:
" Ok, then here is math everyone can understand. Before ethanol production corn was about $2.00/bushel. Today its about $4.00/bushel. Why? Increased demand used for ethanol production.

When in doubt, follow the money. "

 JB wrote on August 7, 2008 10:51 am:
" Sounds to me that Obama would be better for the farmers, but as always they will vote blindly for the Republican. "

 so what wrote on August 7, 2008 11:14 am:
" At least McCain is being honest about his stance and not saying what we want to hear to get our vote. Barry will say this is his stance to get out votes then flip flop at the last minute. "

 wow wrote on August 7, 2008 12:16 pm:
" I would like to put this all in a little better perspective. I work as an independent agent and I do not sell insurance or anything like that, and I do not sell anything to the government or cities or counties, however, I do sell things that are necessary for the people to use in their daily lives. I do not get any tax incentives or tax breaks and no one pays me if I do not get something sold. Yet the vast majority of farming community and the vast majority of builders feel they need some kind of assistance. Where does this all come from, well, let me suggest it comes from people like me and from others that do pay their share. I do not dis agree with John McCain at all, as we can not afford a 300 billion dollar amount for the farm bill as it appears. "

 NE farmer wrote on August 7, 2008 3:48 pm:
" yogi- farmers can't live off $2 a bushel corn. It is hard enough to live off of $4 bushel corn. How bout you come to my farm and you show me "the math" on how I can make a living. Because with fertilizer prices doubling over the past 3 years, seed prices expected to be 30% higher next year and diesel at $4.75 a gallon I don't see how I can keep afloat. Maybe "your math" will help me out. "

 NE farmer wrote on August 7, 2008 4:00 pm:
" People don't you realize that subsidies and the farm bill are projects that keep your annual food costs the lowest in the world by a large margin?!?!?! Sometimes I just wonder what has happened to the education system today. There is absolutely no common sense. Farmers can live without subsidies. I myself am a farmer and have no problem with government changing policies by taxing my offroad diesel fuel for my equipment, not giving me tax breaks on various purchases and pretty much leaving the whole agricultural sector alone. Believe me, in the end farmers would be better off from today and into the next 100 years. You know why?!?!?!? CHINA. Simple as that. This year will be the first year in history that Brazil passes the US in soybean exports due to China's growing economy and their exporting deals with them. With the US government out of the way, farmer owned local Co-op's will be merging with Berlington Northern/UP to transport their products through the open market straight to China where we would receive a much better price. It's simple fact.

Do a little research on why we have subsidies before you all start running your mouth. I'm set the rest of my life with my 5,000 acres and many farmers would think the same way if they would understand global markets and how many of increases in prices today are due to the huge growth in China/India and has nothing to do with us. 1.4 billion people in china and 1.2 billion people in india have much more pull than a little over 300 million here.

Keep complaining and I'll ship my agriculural products elsewhere. "

Ads by Yahoo!

Also in Politics