This week, the U.S. Senate is considering House Resolution 2419; the Farm bill, a bill that will “extend and revise agricultural and related programs respecting: (1) commodities; (2) sugar; (3) dairy; (4) conservation; (5) exports and trade assistance; (6) food stamps and nutrition; (7) agricultural credit; (8) rural development; (9) rural electrification; (10) agricultural research; (11) forestry; (12) energy; (13) specialty crops; and (14) livestock.”
Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, has called on his Senate colleagues to support the Farm bill saying that “Our entire Committee worked in a bipartisan fashion and to a large extent was able to accommodate the interests and priorities of almost every member of the Agriculture Committee. It is my sincere hope that the Senate will agree with our committee and support this farm bill that will strengthen the nation
{ 5 comments }
Harry 11.06.07 at 1:02 pm
Source: The House recently passed another multibillion-dollar farm support
bill. The Senate now has its own version under discussion.
And we can probably expect that the compromise bill that passes
will cost at least $286 billion, says Victor Davis Hanson, Professor of
Classics Emeritus at California State University.
These payouts are neither logical, nor moral, says Hanson:
o The farm subsidy program currently in place pays out over $7
billion directly to larger farmers for a few select crops like
corn, cotton, rice, soy and wheat.
o The bill pays nothing to most other — often smaller —
farmers of fresh fruit and vegetables.
o Yet the former group of farmers is hardly in more need of
welfare than the latter; and soy or rice isn’t more critical
to the American diet than fresh fruit and vegetables.
Worse are the handouts producers of ethanol will receive, says Hanson,
given that the fuel isn’t the panacea it’s made out to be:
o Along with the energy consumed to make ethanol, the switch
over to millions of acres to corn fuel production has already
meant crop shortages and high returns to farmers, from cotton
to wheat and soy.
o If we really want ethanol to supplant gas, it would be far
cheaper to let Brazil export us sugar-based ethanol without
high tariffs.
The $280 billion-plus farm bill is not the largest waste of federal
funds, but it is the most unnecessary — and dishonest, says
Hanson. We are running federal budget deficits — this year’s is
about the size of the proposed multiyear farm bill — and are engaged
in two costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and spending billions in
anti-terrorist security at home. We don’t need to be giving away
more billions to the affluent of an industry that, overall, is doing
quite well.
Source: Victor Davis Hanson, “Farm Subsidies: Welfare That Resists
Reform,” Investor’s Business Daily, November 2, 2007, as quoted by NCPA
The House recently passed another multibillion-dollar farm support
bill. The Senate now has its own version under discussion.
And we can probably expect that the compromise bill that passes
will cost at least $286 billion, says Victor Davis Hanson, Professor of
Classics Emeritus at California State University.
These payouts are neither logical, nor moral, says Hanson:
o The farm subsidy program currently in place pays out over $7
billion directly to larger farmers for a few select crops like
corn, cotton, rice, soy and wheat.
o The bill pays nothing to most other — often smaller —
farmers of fresh fruit and vegetables.
o Yet the former group of farmers is hardly in more need of
welfare than the latter; and soy or rice isn’t more critical
to the American diet than fresh fruit and vegetables.
Worse are the handouts producers of ethanol will receive, says Hanson,
given that the fuel isn’t the panacea it’s made out to be:
o Along with the energy consumed to make ethanol, the switch
over to millions of acres to corn fuel production has already
meant crop shortages and high returns to farmers, from cotton
to wheat and soy.
o If we really want ethanol to supplant gas, it would be far
cheaper to let Brazil export us sugar-based ethanol without
high tariffs.
The $280 billion-plus farm bill is not the largest waste of federal
funds, but it is the most unnecessary — and dishonest, says
Hanson. We are running federal budget deficits — this year’s is
about the size of the proposed multiyear farm bill — and are engaged
in two costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and spending billions in
anti-terrorist security at home. We don’t need to be giving away
more billions to the affluent of an industry that, overall, is doing
quite well.
GeorgiaValues 11.06.07 at 1:17 pm
No AgJobs…
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Scott Gerber or
Monday, November 05, 2007 Phil LaVelle, (202) 224-9629
Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein
on her decision not to offer AgJOBS as an
amendment to the Farm Bill
Washington, DC
I Am Jacks Post 11.06.07 at 2:17 pm
Pork pork pork pork pork pork pork pork pork pork
CHelf 11.06.07 at 2:31 pm
The odd thing is that Saxby has criticised the previous Farm Bill but yet if I recall that previous one was his brainchild that he took sole credit for back in 2002. It and the whole concept of subsidies and corporate welfare were thrown in his face but yet it was his “crowning achievement” he used both in the Primary and General. So much for letting the market dictate. Odd how the free market capitalists within the GOP are in many cases the ones pushing this.
Dawgfan 11.06.07 at 2:43 pm
It’s simple institutional politics. If Saxby wants any say in the bill he has to vote for it. If the President wants any leverage in the conference committee he has to threaten to veto it. For both of them principle and ideology have very little to do with it. It’s a Democrat bill. All Saxby(who by the way is faceing re-election) can do is get as much for Georgia as he can. I would bet all the President is really interested in is making sure Repubs get there fair share. I know that will drive some of you crazy, but like I said it’s a Democrat bill. All they are doing is playing the hand they were delt.
Comments on this entry are closed.