Following the release of the President's Fiscal Year 2015 budget this week, the National Corn Growers Association thinks there are a few concerns with it, even though it's been deemed "dead on arrival," they said.
"Primarily important in its symbolism, the budget released by the Administration reflects current values but is highly unlikely to impact policy in the near future," NCGA explained in a statement Wednesday.
NGCA says there are several reasons why the budget won't move forward. Notably, Senate Democrats don't see a reason to pass a budget at this time, because Congress' December agreement on the matter will be in place for two years. Additionally, the proposed budget does not contain traditional enticements to encourage bipartisan discussion, NCGA asserts.
Another reason is the impending budget expected next week from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis. While it, too, is not expected to go much of anywhere, it will outline party priorities in an election year.
Even though there's little prospect of moving forward with proposed items, NCGA says there's still concern regarding some of the President's priorities.
"Proposing cuts to crop insurance and to food inspection budgets, the budget outlined by the Administration would lead to greater risk for farmers and higher prices for consumers," NCGA's statement said.
The proposed cuts to crop insurance would come in the form of reductions to premium subsidies and also in funding cuts for crop insurance companies, which counter plans set forth in the farm bill.
The farm bill, NCGA pointed out, increased funding for crop insurance intended to help farmers minimize risk and provide economic stability for rural America. Notably, this legislation also provided savings toi tax payers through the elimination of direct payments, they added.
In addition, NCGA said proposed cuts to food inspection spending would be accompanied by proposed fees for inspection paid by users in the budget outlined by the Administration.
"While the reduction would theoretically reduce tax payer spending on such programs, it would create additional costs for consumers by increasing the cost of getting food to market," they noted.