Oswald No-Till Farm Cleghorn, IA | I greatly appreciate your willingness to agree to disagree. I am fully of the belief that it keeps the conversation open which hopefully leads to better outcomes.
This whole discussion is good for me as a leader. Thoughtful challenge causes me to check, cross check if I have been drinking too much of the Kool-Aid.
In all honesty, the more I think about it the more I like the premise of percentage based and non refundable. I know that comment risks inflaming the discussion which is not my intent. Here's why...
Some history:
I was active in both corn and soybean organizations as a young guy before I met my wife. I was selling seed, trying to get going farming, didn't do a lot of social things. Organizations and some political and academic work consumed my hobby time. We got married in 1990. Between that and the non refundability issue with soybeans, I let my active commodity organization work drop. I wasn't that comfortable with the non refundability thing as the libertarian leaning
conservative I am.
I "get" why farmers don't like elements of the check offs. My thinking has changed and matured a bit over time. The reason I am much more accepting of the basic structure since then, and Yes maybe breathing too much KoolAid laden air in the view of some, is that I see why other methods of assessing the tax would be a bigger problem, less efficient, and less fair. I will not sit here and profess the process and results are perfect, that would be lame.
I think most farmers would rather see our overall tax structure flatter and simpler. I am one of them...thus my defense of the soybean check off as it is assessed.
On the dollars, it is a big number and farmer board members know it. In the board room and hall talk at state and USB meetings you will find sincere concern about this. They know they have friends and neighbors who are not real happy about the line item deductions on the checks. This has elevated the discussion and feeling of responsibility over those dollars. Some of these board members are very large producers thus contribute significantly themselves.
This probably doesn't calm the ire of those farmers most upset. I know there is a feeling that the only way to express this ire is by voting against the check off but to many it feels like that option was "fixed" such that the referendum is only open for a 15 minute window on the first sunny, wind free day following two weeks of rain and wind that has caused the weeds to grow like mad.
So, frustration builds. I get that. This is why I encourage engagement with the organizations. Farmer leaders and staff need to hear praise when due and constructive criticism when justified.
You will note I didn't say "well run for a board seat"... That may not work or be the best approach. I just hope that farmers don't become totally apathetic. That doesn't elevate the discussion. Apathy doesn't help support the board members who are trying to deliver results they believe are right and doesn't stimulate staff members who have good intentions and capability but may be lacking direction. Hearing from farmers does help at the state level. The national thing with with the USB is a bit different because that board makeup is influenced by the philosophy of the Secretary of Agriculture in some degree by who he or she appoints to the board. Still, if you want to engage these board members, shoot an email and try to build a relationship with some members from your state.
In closing, I would say we agree on the soybean check off as being a form of tax. We may disagree on how it is assessed. We likely agree the number is big... For how long? Is a good question. I think we can agree that high prices are better than low prices. I am sure we both agree that how those funds are spent is a subject open to much discussion as we know there is not perfection.
To those offering words of support, thanks. To those wanting to have a conversation, there are ways to do that.
Be safe out there.
Tom |
Soybean check off
