Farm Bill: Is Today’s GOP to the Left of Bush?
It’s widely accepted that George W. Bush was a big-spending president. He was a social conservative, but not a fiscal one. To his credit, however, even Bush recognized how wasteful and unfair farm subsidies are, and he vetoed the last major farm bill in 2008.
That bill “would needlessly expand the size and scope of government,” he said in his veto message. Unfortunately, Congress overrode Bush’s veto and the 2008 farm bill became law at an estimated taxpayer cost of $640 billion over 10 years.
Congress is moving ahead on another farm bill this year, with the Senate recently passing its version and the House to take up a bill shortly. The Senate-passed bill would spend $955 billion over 10 years—49 percent more than the 2008 bill that was too expensive even for Bush.
Four-fifths of the spending in this year’s farm bill is for food stamps, yet 18 Republican senators still voted for it. Perhaps those members hadn’t noticed that the cost of food stamps has quadrupled over the last decade. Perhaps they hadn’t noticed that federal government debt has doubled since 2008. To members who see themselves as fiscal conservatives, it should be obvious that a less expensive bill this time around is appropriate, rather than one that is far more expensive.
The farm bill to be considered by the House would spend $940 billion over 10 years, and thus is almost as irresponsible as the Senate version. Despite what farm bill supporters are saying, this year’s bill represents a huge spending increase, not a cut.
In his 2008 veto message, Bush noted that the farm bill “continues subsidies for the wealthy,” and he pointed to the high and rising incomes enjoyed by farmers. Farmers are doing even better today, with theirincomes soaring over the last five years.
Today’s Republicans often admit that federal spending got out of control under President Bush. But now John Boehner is saying that he will support the new House farm bill that spends 47 percent more than the one Bush vetoed.
More from NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/us/politics/house-defeats-a-farm-bill-with-big-food-stamp-cuts.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0
ReplyDeleteI don't see how Congress is going to agree on a farm bill. So I have been researching what the effects would be when we go back to the 1938 and 1949 law. Here is a brief summary of the effects…
ReplyDeletehttp://nationalhogfarmer.com/business/no-farm-bill-resurrects-1949-1938-agricultural-acts
Clearly, there will be very different effects on price supports for basic vs. nonbasic crops under the old laws. Also, up to now the Secretary of Agriculture has not been a very important cabinet post. That will change. He/she will have a lot of new powers to decide who, what, how it all works.
I have no idea how it will affect import/export of agricultural products or the prices we pay at for food at the grocery store, but I have a feeling we are going to find out!
Regarding SNAP, I find it interesting that the people who object to spending to feed poor people have no problem with continuing tax expenditures that add up to the same amount of money over 10 years, according to CBO. It is not the spending itself that disturbs them. It is who does and does not get the money. As we have said before, this all relates to campaign financing.
Anyway, I was wondering what your thoughts are on the farm bill, Tom? For one thing, it illustrates how this Congress can't legislate hardly anything these days. Congress has done the farm bill for the last 75 years.
--David
As is not things related to the government, once it imposes its will on the people,it changes the relationship.
ReplyDeleteThe farm bill is a great example. The most independent individualistic group of people have their activities modified by bucks from the government. I think that this is why we should stop all government programs over the next ten years or sooner.
The more I read about the CBO, the less confidence I have in this organization. It is given direction from Congress and from those directions gives an answer. It is far from the independent agency that I thought it was. Any comment ?
For their forecasting models, the CBO often puts out different "scenarios" based on possible changes in law. Some of these models may be at the direction of Congress (as Ryan asking them to assume that his rosy predictions for economic growth from huge tax cuts). You need to take all these assumptions into account when looking at their data. But they are not "stooges" in the sense you use that word. That is why they also create alternative scenarios to what Congress explicitly requests. They are career economists crunching numbers. You can compare their forecasts to independent private companies like Moody's Analytics, and their forecasts are usually in the same ballpark.
ReplyDeleteIt is going to be very interesting to see what happens without a farm bill. It will have a lot of effects -- some good, some bad, and some yet to be known.
--David
Post-mortem on the farm bill begins…
ReplyDelete"Pelosi described the stewardship of the bill as “juvenile” and wondered why Republican leaders would allow conservatives a vote on two amendments she described as poison pills if some of those members were still going to oppose the final bill.
The first controversial amendment, championed by Boehner, eliminated government production limits on dairy processors. The second, sponsored Rep. Steve Southerland (R-Fla.), empowered states to require food stamp beneficiaries to seek work while on the program.
Pelosi noted that 61 Republicans voted for the Southerland amendment, then voted against the final bill.
“It's a stunning thing,” she said. “Why would you give people an amendment that's going to kill your bill?”
Privately, some GOP lawmakers offered assessments in line with Pelosi’s.
“We can’t even do a f****** farm bill,” groused one frustrated GOP lawmaker, who predicted the House Republican approval rating would drop further."
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/306981-farm-bill-setback-opens-gop-to-attacks-about-ability-to-lead
--David
Republicans have a 16% approval rating…
ReplyDeletehttp://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-have-hideous-approval-rating-2013-5
How does a party with a 16% approval rating retain control of the House of Representatives in 2014? That's because many of them are in gerrymandered congressional districts. This is also why they can't pass a farm bill. So now we go back to 1938 agriculture law! Or, to use Boehner's favorite phrase, maybe they will at least find a way to "kick the can down the road." At this point, I wonder whether he can scrap together enough votes to even do that.
--David