The farm bill is finding itself short of new funds, which could create a rift among congressional Democrats, as CQ Politics' Catharine Richert reports:
Party leaders are concerned the money crunch will incite an intraparty squabble on the House floor because the bill is not likely to satisfy many Democrats outside of the Agriculture panel, aides say.
Many of those lawmakers say their top priorities are land conservation, nutrition, energy and rural development -- accounts for which there is little extra money in the current version of the bill.The legislation, as approved by all six Agriculture subcommittees, would simply extend current farm subsidies instead of trimming those programs -- as many Democrats had hoped -- to pay for new priorities.
"It will all depend on whether people on the Agriculture Committee can listen to and accommodate the call for reform," said Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., on whether there will be a floor fight. "If they don't, there's a strong likelihood they will lose control of their bill."
Read the whole story at the above link. This situation resulted from the reversal of the previous Republican Congresses who had first set an expiration for agricultural subsidies - an excellent idea - but later capitulated to pressure from the recipients and in fact ended up increasing the subsidy regime. The hogs at the trough are expecting even greater slop from Democrats, but the fiscal realities have come home to roost.
Now there is a real debate over how we will waste this money and over whose pockets should be lined with tax dollars. The debate, once "finally" won, over whether we should be subsidizing a profitable industry at all now seems a distant memory. Too bad.
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
Congress, Democrats, General politics, Special Interest Groups
Tags: congress, Democrat, farm, spending
Comments (2)
Mr. Addison's remarks are s... (Below threshold)1. Posted by jimmy thomason | June 29, 2007 6:59 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Mr. Addison's remarks are simplistic and demonstrate an ignorance of agriculture in this nation. I suggest he carefully weigh the costs of USDA's price support program against the consequences of their absence. The United States continues to enjoy the most wholesome, diverse, and economical food supply in the world; in part, due to the USDA programs. Are they perfect? Of course not. But when considering the minimal percentage of the federal budget dedicated to these programs, they are, at best, a marvelous investment in our nation and security and, at worst, certainly no worse than 80 percent of the senseless spending that washes down the federal drain.
1. Posted by jimmy thomason | June 29, 2007 6:59 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on June 29, 2007 18:59
2. Posted by Jim Addison | June 29, 2007 11:56 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Unfortunately, the vast majority of federal farm subsidies go to the largest farming operations and multinational companies like Archer Daniels Midland account for the biggest chunks of the up to $30 billion per year going out. 90% of ag subsidies go to five crops - wheat, corn, rice, soybeans, and cotton, all of which should be quite profitable on their own.
As anyone with a nodding acquaintance with economics knows, subsidies hurt consumers, taxpayers, and even the farm economy in the long term, by distorting the markets, which means resources no longer flow to their most efficient use, but toward areas being subsidized instead.
The "family farmers" who receive subsidies are overwhelmingly huge operations with millions in assets, incomes up to seven figures, and thousands of acres under cultivation. In recent years, many of them have been using the subsidy money to buy up their smaller farming neighbors.
If Mr. Thomason is not a shill for ADM, he does a darned fine impression of one.
2. Posted by Jim Addison | June 29, 2007 11:56 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on June 29, 2007 23:56