I am not a farmer, but I live in a farming community. Here around Thorntown, Indiana, farming is more than something we see through the windshield. It supports families, businesses, churches, and the life of our community.
When our farmers hurt, the whole community feels it.
Recently, I spoke with one farmer who told me he had sold his soybeans at a fair price, yet after paying his expenses, he only broke even. Another told me he had decided not to farm 3,000 acres next year because of his losses.
These conversations concern me. A man can work hard, make responsible decisions, bring in a crop, and still have nothing left to show for his labor. How many years can a family continue doing that?
I have seen diesel advertised here in Indiana at $6.99 a gallon. That is a serious expense for someone who must run tractors, combines, trucks, and other equipment. The farmer cannot simply park the machinery until prices come down. The crop has to be planted when conditions are right and harvested when it is ready.
And diesel is only one part of the bill.
There is fertilizer, seed, machinery, repairs, insurance, land expense, and interest on borrowed money. When several of these costs rise together, a farmer’s profit can disappear before the crop leaves the field.
I believe this has become a national security issue, and candidates need to address it before the midterm elections.
We often discuss national security in terms of military strength. We talk about missiles, ships, aircraft, and the ability to defend our borders. Those matters deserve attention. So does our ability to feed the nation.
A country needs dependable supplies of food, fuel, and fertilizer. It also needs farmers who can afford to stay in business.
A farm closing does not necessarily mean its land will stop producing. Another farmer may take it over. But we should not dismiss the loss of independent farm families as though nothing important has happened. Each departure can mean fewer local owners, fewer opportunities for young farmers, and more of our food production concentrated in fewer hands.
If losses continue, farmers may reduce acreage, postpone equipment repairs, or cut back on investments needed for future production. Those decisions can weaken agriculture over time. We do not have to predict an immediate food shortage to recognize a serious warning.
Scripture says, “The profit of the earth is for all: the king himself is served by the field” (Ecclesiastes 5:9, KJV).
Even the king depends upon the field.
Our elected leaders would do well to remember that.
The concern reaches beyond the farmer’s own finances. Farm purchases support equipment dealers, repair shops, suppliers, and many other local businesses. When farm income disappears, less money circulates through the community. Families become more cautious. Businesses lose customers. Young people begin looking elsewhere for a future.
Higher fuel costs also affect the movement of food. Harvesting is only one step. Crops and livestock must be transported, processed, and delivered. Rising costs throughout that system put pressure on the prices families pay.
The farmer and the grocery shopper are connected, whether they realize it or not.
I am particularly concerned about the effect of war and instability in the Middle East on energy supplies. Wisconsin Public Radio’s recent reporting identifies war-related energy pressures and regional refinery problems among the causes of the diesel burden farmers are facing. The problem has several causes, and responsible leadership must address them together.
Before supporting further military escalation, Congress should demand a clear accounting of the likely consequences for fuel, fertilizer, transportation, and American agriculture.
What is the objective? How will success be measured? What is the diplomatic path toward ending the conflict and protecting shipping? What will American families and farmers be expected to pay?
Those are reasonable questions. Asking them is part of responsible citizenship.
I want our government to place the welfare of American communities at the center of its decisions. The costs of foreign policy do not remain overseas. Some of them arrive at the fuel pump, in the farm operating loan, and on the grocery receipt.
Before the midterm elections, every congressional candidate seeking votes in a farming community should answer several questions plainly:
What will you do to address high diesel costs and strengthen dependable fuel supplies?
How will you help protect access to affordable fertilizer?
How will you address the pressure of operating debt on otherwise viable farms?
What will you do to strengthen competition and fair treatment in agricultural markets?
How will you evaluate the effect of war, tariffs, and energy policy on American food production?
We need more than a campaign photograph beside a tractor. We need practical proposals, honest explanations of their costs, and a willingness to be held accountable.
Temporary assistance may keep some farms operating through a difficult season. But farmers also need conditions in which their work can earn a reasonable return. Borrowing more money to cover another year of losses cannot be the permanent answer.
I am not asking candidates to guarantee that farming will be free of risk. Farmers have always dealt with weather, changing markets, and uncertainty. I am asking our leaders to recognize when public policy adds burdens that threaten the people producing our food.
Neither party should be excused from answering these questions.
The farmer’s bills come due whether a Republican or a Democrat holds office. The harvest does not wait for the election to be over. Families cannot eat campaign promises.
A nation that expects its farmers to feed everyone must take seriously whether those farmers can afford to continue.
The warning signs deserve attention now. By the time we cast our ballots in the midterm elections, candidates should have told us what they intend to do—and voters should have enough information to judge their answers.
Around here, these are our neighbors. Their future is tied to ours.
It is time for Washington to treat that future as a matter of national security.
No comments:
Post a Comment