A Split That Stifles the Farm Revolt
When the farm bill was being debated in Congress, stories of farm foreclosures and auctions regularly made the nightly news and were prominently featured in newspapers and magazines. Neil E. Harl, Iowa State University agricultural economist, provided the most widely quoted estimates of the extent of the crisis: Two-thirds of total farm debt ($140 billion) is owed by farmers whose debt-to-asset ratio is uncomfortably high; 30% of the nation's farmers are sliding toward insolvency, and 12% will go out of business this year.</br></br>But neither this bleak assessment, nor the impressive demonstration by farmers and their legislators at the Lincoln Memorial, nor the planting of white crosses on courthouse lawns in memory of failed farmers could keep national attention focused on the problem after President Reagan's March 6 veto of the farm bill. No federal rescue package is likely now.</br></br>This raises an interesting question. After decades of enormous political success, why did farmers fail this time?</br></br>Obvious reasons, of course, include the size of the federal budget deficit and the amount the federal government is already spending on farm-related programs. But while sound and convincing, there's some doubt they were the deciding reasons.</br></br>Consider Mr. Harl's estimates of the seriousness of the crisis. The first thing to note is that the great majority of the nation's farmers are not in serious financial trouble. This is apparent from the numbers, but what isn't apparent is how the majority that isn't in trouble feels about the minority that is. Farmers have been successful in the past because they were united, and, as such, carried formidable political clout. Are they united this time?