This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/21/house-farm-bill-fail-congress
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| House Farm Bill fail gives Congress a chance to redeem itself | House Farm Bill fail gives Congress a chance to redeem itself |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| To understand why the House Farm Bill failed, and why we should wish it good riddance, consider these two examples: Stephen Fincher, a Republican congressman from Tennessee and a farmer, has received $3.4m in government agricultural subsidies since 1995, according to data from the Environmental Working Group. Another congressman, Douglas LaMalfa of California, has received $5.1m in farm subsidies since 1995. Yet, both congressmen voted against food stamps for people struggling to live on $4.50 a day for food. | To understand why the House Farm Bill failed, and why we should wish it good riddance, consider these two examples: Stephen Fincher, a Republican congressman from Tennessee and a farmer, has received $3.4m in government agricultural subsidies since 1995, according to data from the Environmental Working Group. Another congressman, Douglas LaMalfa of California, has received $5.1m in farm subsidies since 1995. Yet, both congressmen voted against food stamps for people struggling to live on $4.50 a day for food. |
| That's pretty appalling. And it was the farm bill's downfall – at least, in part. The House had planned $20bn of punishing cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) – far more draconian than the $4bn in cuts planned by the bipartisan Senate bill, which now has a shot at the spotlight. | That's pretty appalling. And it was the farm bill's downfall – at least, in part. The House had planned $20bn of punishing cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) – far more draconian than the $4bn in cuts planned by the bipartisan Senate bill, which now has a shot at the spotlight. |
| While it sought to cut $20bn from food stamps, the House bill also provided fat subsidies to wealthy farmers – some of them making more than $750,000 a year, and some of them, revoltingly, members of the same Congress voting for the bill. Government subsidies are bad, it seems, only when they go to the poor. | While it sought to cut $20bn from food stamps, the House bill also provided fat subsidies to wealthy farmers – some of them making more than $750,000 a year, and some of them, revoltingly, members of the same Congress voting for the bill. Government subsidies are bad, it seems, only when they go to the poor. |
| This self-serving is a bridge too far – even for this Congress. It's one thing to vote yourself a dubious pay raise while federal workers suffer a salary freeze for three years. It's another, far more repulsive thing, to vote yourself a subsidy worth over $100,000. | This self-serving is a bridge too far – even for this Congress. It's one thing to vote yourself a dubious pay raise while federal workers suffer a salary freeze for three years. It's another, far more repulsive thing, to vote yourself a subsidy worth over $100,000. |
| So, in the same way that a broken clock can be right twice a day, a dysfunctional Congress can occasionally stumble on the right decision. The Farm Bill that died Thursday in the House of Representatives was a particularly bad piece of legislation – a failure of both conscience and economic policy – and the country is better off without it. | So, in the same way that a broken clock can be right twice a day, a dysfunctional Congress can occasionally stumble on the right decision. The Farm Bill that died Thursday in the House of Representatives was a particularly bad piece of legislation – a failure of both conscience and economic policy – and the country is better off without it. |
| The bill, which comes up every five years for renewal, had one real job: to extend the food stamp program. The bill funds food stamps, which have grown to an $80bn-a-year program because poverty is growing, sweeping the poor and middle-class into its ever-widening sinkhole. That food stamp funding made up about 80% of the $1tn farm bill. The cost of food stamps has risen, not surprisingly, in time with the rise in poverty and unemployment over the past four years. And to demonstrate the difficulty of stretching food stamps into a workable food budget, 26 members of Congress tried to live on food stamps for a week. | The bill, which comes up every five years for renewal, had one real job: to extend the food stamp program. The bill funds food stamps, which have grown to an $80bn-a-year program because poverty is growing, sweeping the poor and middle-class into its ever-widening sinkhole. That food stamp funding made up about 80% of the $1tn farm bill. The cost of food stamps has risen, not surprisingly, in time with the rise in poverty and unemployment over the past four years. And to demonstrate the difficulty of stretching food stamps into a workable food budget, 26 members of Congress tried to live on food stamps for a week. |
| The House Farm Bill did not do this basic job of funding food stamps. Instead, the bill was designed to cut spending on food stamps while it gift-wrapped some presents for corporate lobbying interests: it enriched wealthy farmers; lowered the quality of the US food supply by favoring chemical sugar substitutes over real sweeteners; prevented agribusiness giants like Monsanto from being accountable for any health risks that might arise through genetically modified seeds via the "Monsanto Protection Act"; and contributed to the ongoing economic crisis by leaving 2 million struggling people without a basic subsidy of $4.50 a day to feed themselves. | The House Farm Bill did not do this basic job of funding food stamps. Instead, the bill was designed to cut spending on food stamps while it gift-wrapped some presents for corporate lobbying interests: it enriched wealthy farmers; lowered the quality of the US food supply by favoring chemical sugar substitutes over real sweeteners; prevented agribusiness giants like Monsanto from being accountable for any health risks that might arise through genetically modified seeds via the "Monsanto Protection Act"; and contributed to the ongoing economic crisis by leaving 2 million struggling people without a basic subsidy of $4.50 a day to feed themselves. |
| The Farm Bill also would have been a boon to giant agribusiness companies (again, such as Monsanto), which hired expensive lobbyists to make sure their interests were supported. The defeat of the bill discomfited the plump burghers in the ranks of lobbyists who were hoping to collect on even fatter fees: "Lawmakers on the House agriculture committee were holding calls and frantic closed-door meetings with lobbyists to discuss their next moves," sources told the Hill. | The Farm Bill also would have been a boon to giant agribusiness companies (again, such as Monsanto), which hired expensive lobbyists to make sure their interests were supported. The defeat of the bill discomfited the plump burghers in the ranks of lobbyists who were hoping to collect on even fatter fees: "Lawmakers on the House agriculture committee were holding calls and frantic closed-door meetings with lobbyists to discuss their next moves," sources told the Hill. |
| This bill was seen as partisan, but in a way it was unexpectedly bipartisan: its muddled set of policies managed the neat trick of uniting both Democrats and nearly 60 conservatives against the legislation. The Farm Bill had the unique distinction of being equally loathed by progressive Democrats, who hated its cuts to food stamps, and conservative Republicans, who hated that any money was being spent on food stamps at all. | This bill was seen as partisan, but in a way it was unexpectedly bipartisan: its muddled set of policies managed the neat trick of uniting both Democrats and nearly 60 conservatives against the legislation. The Farm Bill had the unique distinction of being equally loathed by progressive Democrats, who hated its cuts to food stamps, and conservative Republicans, who hated that any money was being spent on food stamps at all. |
| The rightwing Heritage Foundation, which has been blogging heatedly about the Farm Bill's many free-market failures, greeted the bill's demise with open glee. A fun game to play regarding commentary about the Farm Bill, in fact, was to take isolated quotes from analysts and try to guess their political leanings. It's a hard game to play. Try this: | The rightwing Heritage Foundation, which has been blogging heatedly about the Farm Bill's many free-market failures, greeted the bill's demise with open glee. A fun game to play regarding commentary about the Farm Bill, in fact, was to take isolated quotes from analysts and try to guess their political leanings. It's a hard game to play. Try this: |
| "This so-called farm bill is filled with corporate handouts." | "This so-called farm bill is filled with corporate handouts." |
| So said one analyst. A Democratic factotum? No, that was Christine Harbin, a federal policy analyst for the Arlington-based, rightwing Americans for Prosperity. | So said one analyst. A Democratic factotum? No, that was Christine Harbin, a federal policy analyst for the Arlington-based, rightwing Americans for Prosperity. |
| Or how about this? | Or how about this? |
| "The 'farm' bill means more expenses for taxpayers and higher costs for consumers. It means more unnecessary government dependence for wealthy farmers." | "The 'farm' bill means more expenses for taxpayers and higher costs for consumers. It means more unnecessary government dependence for wealthy farmers." |
| Sounds like a veteran liberal propagandist, right? Nope. That one comes from the conservative Heritage Foundation. | Sounds like a veteran liberal propagandist, right? Nope. That one comes from the conservative Heritage Foundation. |
| Then, there's this list of "10 reasons the Farm Bill makes no sense", including "Farm subsidies are reverse Robin Hood" and "Farm subsidies hurt the environment." That one, you may be surprised to find, is not from some bleeding-heart liberal group, but from the libertarian Cato Institute. | Then, there's this list of "10 reasons the Farm Bill makes no sense", including "Farm subsidies are reverse Robin Hood" and "Farm subsidies hurt the environment." That one, you may be surprised to find, is not from some bleeding-heart liberal group, but from the libertarian Cato Institute. |
| Of course, in context, conservatives' interests are not exactly aligned with those of Democrats. But where both sides agree is on opposition to the metastasizing subsidies to farmers – a sloppy system that has evaded reform since 1996, when President Bill Clinton was still in office. And back in 2001, the Cato Institute railed against the farm subsidies in now familiar terms: | Of course, in context, conservatives' interests are not exactly aligned with those of Democrats. But where both sides agree is on opposition to the metastasizing subsidies to farmers – a sloppy system that has evaded reform since 1996, when President Bill Clinton was still in office. And back in 2001, the Cato Institute railed against the farm subsidies in now familiar terms: |
| "There is little justification for the special hold that the agricultural industry has on tax-payers' wallets. Other industries, such as the high-tech industry, are also risky and subject to large price swings but do not receive large-scale government subsidies … subsidies are skewed toward the largest and wealthiest farm businesses. Farm subsidies also subvert their own goal: farmers demand subsidies because of low market prices for their products, but subsidies themselves contribute to lower prices." | "There is little justification for the special hold that the agricultural industry has on tax-payers' wallets. Other industries, such as the high-tech industry, are also risky and subject to large price swings but do not receive large-scale government subsidies … subsidies are skewed toward the largest and wealthiest farm businesses. Farm subsidies also subvert their own goal: farmers demand subsidies because of low market prices for their products, but subsidies themselves contribute to lower prices." |
| Again, largely bipartisan points. These farm subsidies are where government spending really goes wrong. Subsidies do nothing to help the US agricultural system, because they punish both economic and agricultural diversity. | Again, largely bipartisan points. These farm subsidies are where government spending really goes wrong. Subsidies do nothing to help the US agricultural system, because they punish both economic and agricultural diversity. |
| Almost all subsidies go to only five major crops: corn, wheat, cotton, rice, and soybeans. They also favor factory farms. Just 10% of farms – usually, the larger, factory farms – collected 75% of all government subsidies, according to the Environmental Working Group. Small farms – where farmers have to scrape by on annual incomes as low as $17,000 – rarely benefit from these subsidies and are left out in the cold. The subsidy system is also vulnerable to fraud, including cases in which farmers and insurance adjusters have conspired to claim fake losses on crops. | Almost all subsidies go to only five major crops: corn, wheat, cotton, rice, and soybeans. They also favor factory farms. Just 10% of farms – usually, the larger, factory farms – collected 75% of all government subsidies, according to the Environmental Working Group. Small farms – where farmers have to scrape by on annual incomes as low as $17,000 – rarely benefit from these subsidies and are left out in the cold. The subsidy system is also vulnerable to fraud, including cases in which farmers and insurance adjusters have conspired to claim fake losses on crops. |
| The politics of the bill's demise are entertaining – in a way that makes you yearn for a Francis Underwood, the calculating congressional whip from the Netflix drama House of Cards, to come in and teach Washington how to get stuff done. Less entertaining is the battle that will now ensue to get a workable farm bill. Congressional lawmakers have until 30 September to come up with a better alternative. This is their chance to prove they know how. | The politics of the bill's demise are entertaining – in a way that makes you yearn for a Francis Underwood, the calculating congressional whip from the Netflix drama House of Cards, to come in and teach Washington how to get stuff done. Less entertaining is the battle that will now ensue to get a workable farm bill. Congressional lawmakers have until 30 September to come up with a better alternative. This is their chance to prove they know how. |