Republicans and Democrats have reached a deal that substantially increases the prospects for passage of a massive farm bill in the Senate. The Senate will vote on 73 amendments and then vote on passage. According to Senate Agriculture Committee chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), the deal “is really an example of the Senate coming together to agree to get things done.”
It’s also an example of Republicans and Democrats coming together to fleece taxpayers. Chris Edwards and I noted this in an op-ed we penned yesterday for The Hill:
Pundits claim that partisanship is creating gridlock in Washington. But in the Senate, the two parties still know how to make bipartisan deals on big government subsidy legislation. That chamber may move ahead with a massive agriculture bill that would spend almost $1 trillion over the next decade. Supporters are calling it a “reform” bill because it would trim a measly two percent from projected spending over the period.
Sen. Stabenow crowed that “We are now closer than ever to achieving real reform in America’s agriculture policy.” Here’s our response to that claim:
This year, Farm Bill supporters are claiming that their bill represents major a “reform.” It is true that the Senate bill would end some types of subsidies, such as “direct payments.” However, it would replace them with new subsidies, such as a “shallow loss” program to deliver more aid if farm revenues fell below the high levels of recent years. This new program could end up costing as much or more than direct payments, and may cause more distortions to agricultural markets…Real reform would entail abolishing farm subsidy programs and not replacing them with anything—except with the natural entrepreneurial skills of farm businesses.
Assuming that Stabenow & Co. have to votes for passage, attention is going to turn to the Republican-controlled House. Edwards and I note that thus far Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and his lieutenants have been silent on the Senate version of the farm bill, which is curious because the House leadership has made its intentions clear on other major bills that the Senate wants to pass before the November elections:
Next
2
1
View Full Article
 Tad DeHaven Tad DeHaven is a budget analyst at the Cato Institute. Previously he was a deputy director of the Indiana Office of Management and Budget. DeHaven also worked as a budget policy advisor to Senators Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Tom Coburn (R-OK).
Most Recent Articles
TH Finance Alerts
Join the Debate
14 Comments So Far
Login in to Post Your Comments
John C6 Wrote: 3 hours ago (8:04 PM)
Gentle Readers,
My Dear Mr. DeHaven,
Despite having been labeled a ' farm bill ', over 3/4 of the money being appropriated is
for the Food Stamps program.
Whether you agree with that program or not, only a small fraction of the money goes directly to
farmers. Most of it goes to people enrolled in the governments various nutrition and assistance
programs.
Kindest Regards to all,
John Lepant Brighton CO
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Joanne125 Wrote: 6 hours ago (5:09 PM)
this is outrages .. these "subsidies" have been going on too long and need stopping .. besides it's the big corporate "Farmers" that are getting the money ..
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Earl29 Wrote: 8 hours ago (3:39 PM)
A plague on both their houses. Write/call/tweet your congressman.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
71 911E, TX Wrote: 8 hours ago (3:35 PM)
Mr. DeHaven neglected to mention where the subsidies are going.
$768B of the $900 some B is going to food stamps.
Of the $138B going to farmers, the vast majority is going to large corporate farms, and not to small farms. Still, doesn't $13.8B a year going to any farmers sound like a lot?
Another trillion dollar boondoggle
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
kenneth416 Wrote: 10 hours ago (1:08 PM)
There is no question that "farm bills" over the years have served to stabilize and ensure an adequate food supply for our people (as well as for export), while making it feasible for farmers to earn a decent living, despite the vagaries of weather and natural disasters. However, as the family farms have disappeared and been replaced by the giant farm conglomerates such as Archer-Daniels-Midland et al, farm aid has become a way to reward generous contributors to political campaigns and a way to prop up prices. The food stamp program does indeed tend to assist in the latter endeavor, effectively guaranteeing a market at whatever the price. Corn prices are artificially elevated by the ethanol mandate, etc. The problem is so pervasive!
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Earl29 Wrote: 8 hours ago (3:41 PM)
There's always a question.
There are a lot of nice things that are just not the business of the national government.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Ron4594 Wrote: 12 hours ago (11:40 AM)
There wouldn't be an excuse for a "subsidy bill" if farmers didn't have to hand half their operating capitol to government as taxes.
Pig farmers should have been asked to collect their pig urine for collection by the USAF to dump from fire-fighting planes on ME Mooooooslims and other Arabs.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
gomeroh Wrote: 12 hours ago (11:35 AM)
Why don't we just call a pig a pig and quit referring to this crap legislation as a "farm bill"? Although the bill is known as the farm bill, the majority of the spending, about $80 billion a year, goes to the food stamp program.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Florida Jim2 Wrote: 12 hours ago (11:23 AM)
Debbie Stabenow and every Senator and Congressman that votes for this fleecing should be voted out this year. We must get serious about our debt and rewarding wealthy farmers is not part of the solution. Either vote the way we want you to or face firing.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Earl29 Wrote: 8 hours ago (3:42 PM)
I agree. Or whenever they run again.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
DwightMann Wrote: 14 hours ago (9:35 AM)
Time for the pigs to go on a crash diet. . .
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
KeithP Wrote: 14 hours ago (9:23 AM)
?Will Rogers said it best: "Never blame a legislative body for not doing something. When they do nothing, that don't hurt anybody. When they do something is when they become dangerous." |
