Haley shouldn’t veto relief bill for farmers
Gov. Nikki Haley doesn’t object when the state offers special tax incentives to attract new business and industry to the state. So it’s hard to understand why she wants to veto state efforts to lend a helping hand to farmers after they suffered $330 million in losses because of a massive flood.
South Carolina farmers say 2015 ranks among the worst years ever for them. The S.C. Department of Agriculture reported that the state’s entire cotton, soybean and peanut crops were destroyed by an October flood that covered much of the state. Then, with the wet weather continuing into 2016, many farmers were unable to plant a full crop in the spring because of standing water.
The state’s farmers have access to federal crop insurance and emergency low-interest loans, but that aid does not come close to covering their entire losses. Farmers hit by last year’s flood had hoped the state also would provide some relief.
This month, the General Assembly passed a bill to give $40 million to farmers to help them recover. Farmers in disaster-declared counties could request grants of up to $100,000 to cover up to 20 percent of their 2015 crop losses.
Haley, who argues that farmers should be treated no differently from other small business owners, has threatened to veto the bill. But the comparison is fundamentally unfair: farmers aren’t ordinary small businessmen.
Unlike the average business owner, farmers are at the mercy of the weather year in and year out. A typical small business might make an insurance claim now and then, but farmers could be hit by several years of crop-destroying weather in a row.
We reward farmers for enduring the uncertainties of trying to plant and harvest a crop because agriculture is regarded as a necessity to the nation’s well being. And it also is a mainstay of South Carolina’s economy.
Failing to help sustain the state’s agriculture industry could mean not only that many farmers could go out of business but also that many potential young farmers will be discouraged from undertaking the risks of farming in the first place. That would be bad news for the poorer rural parts of the state where farming remains a vital part of the local economy.
The state’s farm relief bill passed by a vote of 85-2 in the House and 33-3 in the Senate. Those majorities are well over the two-thirds needed to override a veto by Haley, and we hope lawmakers exercise that prerogative if necessary.
The state routinely provides an array of perks and privileges to prospective businesses. We should be just as attentive to the needs of the agriculture industry that already contributes substantially to the state’s economy.
This story was originally published May 11, 2016 at 4:03 PM with the headline "Haley shouldn’t veto relief bill for farmers."