Home

Search

Browse

About IPO

Staff

Links

THE RECENT disruption of Washington traffic by tractorcades sponsored by the American Agriculture Movement (AAM) will have almost no effect on an agricultural lobbying battle now being waged in the halls of Congress. The size and vociferousness of the AAM protest obscures the fact that the deciding influence on farm prices often is made in the back rooms on the Hill and is handled by well-heeled lawyer-lobbyists. Such is the case with an upcoming price-support trade-off which could have benefitted Illinois farmers -- but won't.

The story of the trade-off starts last year and involves a product foreign to Illinois -- sugar. In late 1978, members of Congress from sugar growing states tried to push through legislation raising sugar price supports by several cents a pound, to 17 cents. The hike would have been directly passed on by processors to consumers in the form of a several cents per package increase for sugar on grocery store shelves.

The sugar producers' move failed, thanks to opposition from President Carter. But the sugar supporters are back this year, and this time Carter seems willing to compromise.

According to Ray Stansberry, sugar price expert for the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS), the administration is prepared to go halfway for the sugar men: "Carter will support a price of 15.8 cents per pound for this year's sugar. That's an increase over the present 15 cent per pound price, but not as high as these guys want." The sugar growers want 17 cents per pound but would settle for a 15.8 cent price plus an extra half cent per pound subsidy.

Where Illinois farmers come into this equation -- and where Illinois farmers are shortchanged -- is in the support for the sugar subsidy.

At least one newsletter here has reported that in their drive for price supports, sugar state legislators have picked up support from legislators who represent corn growing districts. With Illinois second in the nation in corn, our delegation should expect some sort of quid pro quo for Midwest and Illinois corn growers.

So far, that expected development shows no signs of coming to fruition. The sugar growers will get their price supports with the aid of corn state legislators; the corn farmers will be left out in the cold.

Horace Godfrey, president of the American Sugar Cane League -- the sugar producers' lobby here -- denied any knowledge of Capitol Hill tradeoffs. But, speaking of legislators from farm areas, he commented, "We do stick together." He added, "The corn producers and congressmen have an interest in sugar price supports. If they get them, then part of the corn farming community benefits."

It is true that higher sugar price supports would indirectly pull up the price of corn syrup which has similar uses. But both Stansberry and Godfrey point out that corn syrup takes only a small part of the national corn crop. Stansberry estimated that a 5 percent share of the corn was taken for syrup. That small of a percentage, both agreed, would have absolutely no effect on the price of corn, and led both to say that the sugar state legislators would not necessarily support higher corn price supports.

"The support of Midwest corn state legislators for our supports wouldn't have any effect on our decision on corn price supports," Godfrey said. He added that he had not heard of Midwest members supporting the higher sugar price supports, anyway. "I don't know of any deal," he said.

Stansberry felt such a deal is unlikely and added that the administration would oppose it. "I see no chance of a corn-sugar coalition forming to back higher corn prices. The other 95 percent of the corn crop is not affected by our sugar support decision, since it goes for feed or human consumption.

"I also don't see either the Congress or the President supporting higher corn support prices. It's like trading a horse for a rabbit."

About the only hope for Illinois farmers in the face of the breakdown in this corn-sugar trade-off comes from a third Washington lobbyist, Michael Hall of Great Plains Wheat, Inc.

Hall says that although the wheat growers will stay neutral on the sugar support battle, he hopes the Carter bill passes: "If it gets through, it would tend to reinvigorate corn and grain price support drives. Those growers would ask, 'If you can do it for them, why not for me?'"

Hall says he would look for moves on the part of corn growers to support loan extensions, higher loan and target prices for corn and wheat, and measures providing for an early entry of the 1979 Illinois and Midwest corn and wheat crop into the federal reserve program. "You'll have a lot of southern wheat in the program before the Great Plains wheat comes in. That will leave the Midwest farmers with several unhappy alternatives," such as redeeming federal loans and trying to market the wheat in an already glutted market, according to Hall.

That one possibly hopeful scenario mentioned by Hall is, as of this moment, unlikely. With the ASCS predicting that last year's net nationwide farm income gains may "be difficult to sustain," farmers in Illinois are likely to be extremely frustrated -- frustrated enough to reappearin Washington's streets for another tractorcade.

32 / May 1979 / Illinois Issues