Will it rain? Will cattle prices stay up? Can our school stay open? Who should we elect to the county commission?

Those are the questions you'd think we should be asking when we ponder the futures of our rural communities. Sadly, the most important question facing us in 2007 is "What will the 2007 Farm Bill look like in Washington?"

And here's an even sadder truth: the authors of the Farm Bill will probably have the best interests of rural America at heart, but what they do (if history is an indicator) will probably hurt more than help.

The Washington Post has a good article today on that very subject. Several articulate farmers make the point that grain subsidies have actually accelerated the decline of rural communities. Though they'd rather not have the "help," they admit they must take it or they are at a competitive disadvantage because the marketplace is often affected by the subsidies.

The article also makes the point that small farms are not necessarily backwards; it can be a lifestyle choice to stay small ... just as you might like to run just one bakery rather than a chain of bakeries. But, again, well-meaning government policies have definitely rewarded those who want to farm everything that connects with their land.

I will always remember the hard-working, good-natured farmer who testified at a hearing in Pierre in the 1990s. He was making the point that his small farm wasn't necessarily inefficient, and he explained his thinking this way: "I'd rather have my neighbor than my neighbor's farm."