Editorials: Harris on agriculture

The Harris-Walz campaign has been criticized for not laying out a more extensive policy platform. That appears to be taking shape as Vice President Kamala Harris debated former President Donald Trump on national television Tuesday evening. Understandably, Harris hasn’t had much time over a matter of weeks to build out a policy framework.

Voters know little about how a new Democratic administration will approach food, agriculture and energy. We have a good idea of what Trump intends to do: gut nutrition programs, scale back agland conservation significantly, dismantle crop insurance and price supports, and strip regulations from food processors.

There is almost no book on Harris, so we are left to assume that she will pursue the moderate ag agenda of past Democratic administrations — pro-biofuels, blanching at regulation, being mildly restrictive of consolidated livestock production and processing, backing crop insurance and conservation while faithfully supporting nutrition programs. In short, more of the same. Trump wants to blow things up. Hence, a new five-year farm bill is more than a year overdue.

Harris argued as California attorney general generally for restrictions on how animals are raised. As vice president she served an administration that opposed California’s proposition 12, which banned small gestation crates for sows. She simply has not had much to do with agriculture per se.

Her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, has a solid record of 12 years in Congress representing a conservative farming district anchored by Mankato and Rochester. He was a predictable supporter of the commodity groups and their interests. Walz and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack are on the same page. It is not known who the next agriculture secretary will be. Vilsack loves the job. He is pretty good at running a huge and diverse USDA.

Vilsack has pushed a “climate-smart” ag program that has yet to yield much result in our neighborhood, perhaps because it is run through corporations.

Harris might prefer someone new, maybe from California, the top ag state with daunting issues — drought, floods and wildfires — that present serious challenges to producers and to our food security.

To the extent that Democrats struggle connecting with rural voters, Harris should listen carefully to Walz as they develop an agriculture and food program. He has been in the trenches on the House Ag Committee. He survived in a rural, red district.

Clearly, Harris will defend strong nutrition programs. She will continue to ramp up anti-trust efforts in a consolidated ag supply chain, which have been lacking for decades. She probably will defend the basic architecture of the farm bill, including crop insurance and price supports, with an emphasis on conservation. That’s a safe bet. It is hard to imagine that much will be done that would unravel the system built around biofuels, confined livestock feeding and the commodity row crops.

Trump would rip away the safety net and destroy nutrition programs. Forget about the Conservation Reserve Program. Wind and solar expansion will be on the back burner. Anything goes. The choice for production agriculture should be obvious — Harris — but that would mean voting for a Democrat.

Hiding the facts

Dallas County Attorney Jeannine Ritchie refuses to let the public know how and why the Jan. 4 Perry school shooting happened. The Iowa Department of Criminal Investigation issued a report to Ritchie, which she refuses to let the public see. She said it is because this is an ongoing investigation.

The shooter, a 17-year-old, is dead. It is hard for the public to fathom what is left to investigate after nine months, when the DCI has wrapped up its investigation.

Ritchie is standing firm against calls from affected families, city and school officials to hear the facts. She also stands firm against the public interest. If there is an investigation, be done with it now. If anyone is to be charged, Ritchie should have done so by now. She must be trying to cover up a terribly embarrassing or even shameful aspect. That’s what it looks like, that Ritchie is trying to provide cover for somebody. It casts doubt everywhere, and it prolongs the community’s confusion. We all deserve to know the facts on mass shootings. The county attorney is standing in the way of community healing and perhaps even solutions to gun violence.