Investing in Rural Places
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
Twice this month -- in "Rural Aid Goes to Urban Areas" [front page, April 6] and in "Rural Development" [editorial, April 11] -- The Post has questioned the Agriculture Department's development investments in rural communities that have experienced growth, are within close proximity to a major city or rely on tourism as an economic driver.
For the record, each of the communities discussed by The Post does indeed meet Congress's statutory definition of "rural." The investments highlighted are successful projects that increased economic opportunity and improved the quality of life. Also, many rural development programs target low-income individuals and communities while others -- such as the rural broadband, renewable energy and critical access to hospital programs -- are focused on other national priorities.
That said, the Bush administration has repeatedly sought to streamline rural development programs. We are doing so again in President Bush's 2007 farm bill proposals. The definition of "rural" is just one of many important issues under review, and we look forward to a constructive dialogue with Congress on this question.
THOMAS C. DORR
Under Secretary for Rural Development
Agriculture Department
Washington
