Let’s Understand The Facts Before Gutting Program
The U.S. fiscal crisis has put all government expenditures under the microscope or on the chopping block. Politicians of every persuasion are talking about ways to remedy our burgeoning federal deficit. Super committees have been created and have died. And despite the rhetoric from pundits and economic experts, there is no clear pathway forward to address our chronic problem of too much expense and too little revenue in our federal government.
For the record, I am a fiscal conservative who is wary of burgeoning spending. I, too, am concerned about the litany of reports of governmental inefficiency or out-right waste.
But a recent indictment of the Conservation Reserve Program from policymakers, duck hunters and other sportsmen and women indicate an information vacuum of epic proportions. Boiled down, the perception is one of program costs versus program benefits.
CRP is continually the focus of policymaker’s budget thrashing. It is, after all, the 900-pound gorilla of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s conservation programming. It impacts more acreage, is costly and thusly gets more scrutiny than any other conservation action. CRP is also in the crosshairs of some interests groups because they believe eliminating CRP would increase crop acreage, increase commodity inventory and drive commodity prices down.
