Agriculture will see less federal money next year as President Bush’s proposed 2005 budget would give less funding to rural economies and farm-based renewable energy.

Bush has proposed an estimated $2.2 billion budget for rural development, a cut from last years budget of about $2.4 billion.

The budget, released Feb. 2, would cut funding to rural economies by giving less assistance to value-added enterprises and rural equity capital, health care and education.

Those cuts in funding would result in a loss of capital for Iowa, as value-added enterprises and renewable energy research and jobs have garnered more money for the state than traditional farming, said Bruce Babcock, professor of economics.

Babcock said Bush’s proposed budget would cut many of these value-added grants while keeping farm payments that fund traditional ways of farming.

“Some value-added grants that deal with ethanol, biodiesel and wind power are one way to reverse the tremendous plight of Iowa’s rural economy,” Babcock said. “The traditional approach of using farm payments as a rural development doesn’t work.”

Iowa’s farmers and economy could benefit greatly from value-added grants because the capital brought in through these funded value-added grants would allow Iowa to expand its economy, farm research and position as an agriculture leader in the nation, Babcock said.

Value-added enterprises increase the economic and consumer appeal of an agricultural commodity by using all parts of a product, such as corn, in a variety of ways.

Less money spent on ethanol, biodiesel, wind power and the Conservation Security Program, which rewards farmers who implement conservation plans that protect the resources on their operation, would result in a loss of reliable and efficient resources for farmers, Babcock said.

Many of the programs that may be cut had been unsuccessful in helping rural economies in the past because they had only a one-time infusion of cash into one business or organization, said Arne Hallam, professor and chairman of economics.

“What concerns me is the proposed major decreases in special grants that have been very valuable money to Iowa, because of the important long-running work they have done,” Hallam said. “If they’re cut, the work doesn’t get done.”

According to Bush’s proposed budget, money for these areas has been taken in order to allocate $61 million more than the 2004 budget for the Food Safety and Inspection Service because of research into mad cow disease and the threat of bioterrorism.

Kurt Thurmaier, professor of political science, said money is being taken away from rural economies because Bush is giving more money to the military.

“The president’s budget is about priorities. I think it is evident that the president is about the military,” Thurmaier said.

Louis Kishkunas, vice chairman of the ISU College Republicans, said Bush is cutting funding for many programs because they were not helpful to the small farmer.

“Bush’s ultimate goal is to help the small farmer by being efficient, not big-factory farming,” Kishkunas said.

Bush’s proposed budget for the U.S. Department of Agriculture is $82 billion, which makes up 3.4 percent of the total budget.