Tariffs Pinch Agtegra, Hurt Farmers Long-Term; Bjorkman Wants Congressional Action, Johnson Wants Bigger Government

In today’s round-up of news on the harm Donald Trump is doing to the farm economy:

Agtegra says it’s lucky it consolidated last year, since their new mega-co-op is better positioned to weather the “storm” created by Trump’s tariffs, which Agtegra thought were too damaging for Trump to stick with for this long:

Mike Nickolas, executive vice president and chief operating officer of grain, once thought the ongoing trade war was too big of an issue to carry on, saying in April that he felt it would resolve itself before causing too much harm to American soybean farmers.

But that hasn’t been the case, he said. And it looks like it could drag on.

“On the marketing side of things, we’re out there on a daily basis putting a bid out there for new crop soybeans and also nearby soybeans (and) we do not have a market to sell those into,” he said. “There’s no bid (for) the Pacific Northwest right now for soybeans to go to be exported.”

“So we’re kind of out here, on a limb, bidding for these soybeans, and we have no homes for them at this time. It’s a big risk for the co-op,” Nickolas said [Victoria Lusk, “Better Together: Single Co-op Better Fit to Handle Tough Economy, Agtegra Leaders Say,” Aberdeen American News, 2018.08.22].

Even if Trump pulled out now, foreign trade partners will be slow to come back, says National Farmers Union president Roger Johnson:

Johnson says he would rather see the $12 billion Trump ag bailout put into the upcoming Farm Bill. He says that’s because farmers will need relief over the long haul, as it will take time if foreign markets come back to U.S. producers, if ever.

“The trade disputes are likely to be undercutting our markets for a long time to come,” Johnson said. “You just don’t get these foreign markets back the day after fighting with these other countries” [Todd Epp, “National Farmers Union President Says Foreign Markets Won’t Come Back Quickly,” KELO Radio, 2018.08.23].

Madison editor and publisher Jon Hunter wonders in his usual gentle prose if maybe Congress maybe oughta kinda sorta have something to say about the taxes the White House has been imposing on fight-whim:

The back-and-forth tariff-raising process, considered a “trade war,” was originally intended to protect American businesses who have fared poorly against foreign competition. In recent weeks, however, tariffs have been enacted for other purposes, such as to apply pressure to release an American pastor in Turkey. They now appear to be a favorite fighting tool for a president who looks for fights.

It’s still possible this trade war eventually leads to improved trade agreements between the U.S. and other countries. But we wonder if all the authority for this sort of fight, which has a huge economic impact on Americans of all sorts, should be solely with the administration. Other sorts of taxes require the approval of both Congress and the President.

While we don’t have a lot of faith Congress could come to reasonable agreements, either, perhaps involving Congress could provide balance to what has become a one-man fighting tool [Jon Hunter, “If Tariffs Are Taxes, Why Isn’t Congress Engaged?” Madison Daily Leader, 2018.08.20].

Democratic candidate for U.S. House Tim Bjorkman continues to call more directly for Congress to reassert its Constitutional authority over tariffs and trade, while his Republican opponent Dusty Johnson continues to seek some awkward balance between Trumpiness and Judge Bjorkman’s impeccable Constitutional sense by claiming Congress should only assert its authority over tariffs in the future, not on the Trump tariffs that are hurting South Dakota farmers right now. The best palliative Dusty Johnson can come up with to present farm pain is to divert some of Trump’s $12-billion farm welfare plan, details of which remain unavailable, to the pockets of more government cronies in suits:

On trade, Bjorkman criticized President Trump in his trade negotiations saying, “These tariffs came on several years of diminishing farm prices, and they couldn’t have come at a worst time. Congress should have required the President to follow the Constitution and come to Congress to enact a tariff. We are now paying a devastating price. While we have real issues with trade violators like China, those need to be dealt with through international pressures, not in a reactionary method like what has been done.”

In his response, Johnson said farmers are simply looking for a pathway to market their product, and he credited ongoing relationships with Canada and Mexico for trade deals that have increased from $8 billion in 1994 to $39 in 2017. He said, “Now that we are here, we have to ask what is the best way to find a swift and successful outcome to those negotiations?”

Johnson cited three things needed in order for the U.S. to move forward into a swift and certain trade deal — making E15 available year-round, opening trade not aid, and using part of the $12 billion pledged to farmers by President Trump to “hire the best negotiations in the world to bring these bilateral agreements to the puzzle” [Amanda Radke, “Candidates Square Off at Dakotafest Debate,” Tri-State Livestock News, 2018.08.23].

Instead of balancing the impacts of higher tariffs (a.k.a. taxes) with increased welfare spending, Dusty Johnson wants to put more high-price negotiators on the federal payroll. Are there any real Republicans left?

Donald Trump really should come to South Dakota, campaign next to Dusty Johnson, and explain to Agtegra’s members and other farmers how these tariffs are helping South Dakota.