Our guest blogger is Sarah Jane Glynn, a policy analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

President Obama spoke at the White House Rural Economic Forum in Peosta, Iowa on Tuesday, and unveiled a new plan to aid rural America. The plan covers a variety of issues impacting rural Americans, and while it addresses everything from methamphetamine use, to infrastructure, to foreclosures, Obama’s closing speech focused on one of its key components: jobs.

The number of farms has fallen, and more than 90 percent of farming families now rely on off-farm income. Yet net farm income is anticipated to increase 20 percent from 2010, the second highest inflation-adjusted value in 35 years. How is this possible? While small family operations make up more than 90 percent of farms, they control only 27 percent of production. The largest 1.6 percent of farms (most of which are corporately owned) accounted for 50 percent of farm sales in 2002. Part of Obama’s rural jobs initiative would shift the power balance in order to benefit family farms.

Part of Obama’s plan includes encouraging young people to become farmers, as the average American farmer is 57 years old, and an influx of young people is necessary to prevent small farms from disappearing. Obama will create a new program to train and develop the next generation of farmers, offer tax breaks to landowners selling to new family farmers, and tax-credits to off-set the cost of starting small farms. As he said this week:

I saw some of these future farmers of America and their young president right over there, and when you hear the enthusiasm…and energy that these young people display, and the fact that if they can just get a little bit of a break when it comes to getting started on the front end, get a little bit of help with capital, that they are ready to take American agriculture to the next level — it gives you confidence, it gives you hope.

Organic farming is one of the fastest growing sectors of U.S. agriculture, and organic farms tend to be smaller and are more likely to be run by younger people. Obama will increase funds for the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program, which provides financial assistance to help farmers comply with organic certification standards. The plan also calls for changes to the USDA’s crop insurance rate so that organic farmers are not penalized — organic produce is particularly susceptible to damage from disease and insects.

Finally, Obama has stated he will close loopholes that allow mega-farms to collect federal payments, by limiting eligibility to farmers who are actively working the land, or landlords who are renting to active farmers. In 2009, 62 percent of the $9.5 billion in government payouts to farms went to those grossing more than $250,000 per year, even though they make up only 12 percent of all farms.

While this is a far cry from the overhauls the Center for American Progress has proposed in the past, if we are all going to be focused on Iowa, at least we are talking about how to help family farms rather than who looks the best eating a corndog.

A few months ago, the Los Angeles Times pointed out that virulenty anti-government spending Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) was receiving income from a farm that collected federal subsidies. Bachmann responded by claiming, “the farm is my father-in-law’s farm, it’s not my husband and my farm. My husband and I have never gotten a penny of money from the farm.” However, Bachmann claimed income from the farm on her 2009 financial disclosure form.

As McClatchy noted today, Bachmann — all her protests aside — claimed income from the farm again in 2010, which were filed last week:

Despite repeatedly asserting that she has never received income from a family farm that has drawn federal subsidies in the past, Rep. Michele Bachmann again listed the farm as a source of income when she filed her 2010 personal financial disclosures late last week. Bachmann, R-Minn., also reported that the farm had more than doubled in value since 2009. [...]

Bachmann’s financial disclosures paint a different picture. Since 2006, she has reported receiving between $37,504 and $120,000 in income from the farm, including between $5,001 and $15,000 that she disclosed for the 2010 calendar year.

Bachmann also reported that her farm doubled in value over the past year: “In 2009, Bachmann listed the farm as an asset worth between $100,001 and $250,000. In her 2010 forms, Bachmann valued the farm between $500,001 and $1 million.” The counseling clinic that Bachmann runs with her husband has also received federal funding.

Falling into line with the Tea Party rhetoric against “out-of-control” government spending, Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) is now supporting a move away from direct subsidies to the agriculture industry in favor of an incentives-driven model. But Perry himself has benefited from over $80,000 in farm subsidies over the years and publicly declared his support for farm subsidies when running for Texas Agriculture Commissioner in 1990. After his opponent accused him of wanting to terminate price supports for farmers, Perry was quick to deny the claim:

“[Former Commissioner Jim Hightower] says I support eliminating our farm program payments. That’s not true. I’ve participated in the program as a producer. My neighbors participate. I know what would happen to rural areas of Texas if these programs were discontinued. I do not support such an action.”

Perry certainly has benefited from the nation’s proclivity toward farm payouts; his 40-acre farm — which he finally sold in 1998 — brought him $72,687 in farm payments between 1987 and 1989 and even made him an additional $9,624 for leaving his land lying fallow. Perry’s father has also received $6,443 from cotton and wheat subsidies in 2002 and 2003.

When asked to comment on the subsidies, Perry’s office defended his record. “The governor is proud of his years in the farming industry, which he believes is an important part of the nation’s overall economy,” spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said.

But she also reiterated Perry’s position on federal spending, saying, “Out of control Washington spending is threatening every aspect of our economy, and now, more than ever, the federal government has an opportunity and obligation to have a real conversation about how to get our country’s fiscal house in order.”

Perry is expected to declare his intention to run for president during a speech in South Carolina this weekend. If he is to win the GOP nomination, however, he will have to appeal to an anti-spending, anti-government base — something that his history of accepting farm subsidies may hinder.

– Sarah Bufkin

Our guest blogger is Steph Larsen, Policy Director of the Community Food Security Coalition.

When asked at a recent press conference what the United States can do to help make food more affordable around the world, President Bush replied:

One thing I think that would be — I know would be very creative policy is if we — is if we would buy food from local farmers as a way to help deal with scarcity, but also as a way to put in place an infrastructure so that nations can be self-sustaining and self-supporting. It’s a proposal I put forth that Congress hasn’t responded to yet, and I sincerely hope they do.

President Bush is suggesting that we put international food-aid money into local economies rather than the current policy of food aid, which must be purchased in the US and transported on US-flagged ships. This change would support local production and distribution abroad, rather than exporting US products that lower prices and hurt agriculture-based economies in other countries. Bush introduced this position in his State of the Union address, in which he asked Congress “to provide food assistance by purchasing crops directly from farmers in the developing world, so we can build up local agriculture and help break the cycle of famine.”

President Bush should support policies that encourage local and regional purchasing within our own borders as well.

Legislators can do something right now. Since the Farm Bill is still in flux, it is important to show your support for geographic preference language that will allow School Nutrition Programs to prefer locally grown foods during purchasing process.

The 2002 Farm Bill included language that encourages schools to purchase food from local producers. However, in a letter to school food service directors in 2007, the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) states that “interpretation is incorrect and FNS disagrees with it as a result.” USDA’s misinterpretation necessitates a strong, clear statement from Congress that schools are allowed to use a geographic preference in their bid. The tentative agreement reached on the Farm Bill includes such language, although now President Bush is threatening a veto.

Call the Capitol Switchboard at 202.224.3121 and let your legislators know that they should keep language in the Farm Bill that allows schools flexibility to purchase from local farmers.