The farm bill died from lack of consensus building hard work
We have had farm bills in place since the depression era. But the latest version did not make it through Congress. So who cares? And who should care? (see here for story)
This sentence right here "It continued to reward commodity producers—growers of corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, and cotton—who are already earning record income. " shows precisely one of the areas where our national debt is coming from. It just seems absolutely ridiculous to me that we (as a country) reward the wealthy with even more money. There should be something within the bill that states if farmers are earning above X dollars a year they must adhere to conservation guidelines on a matter of principle. People need to take more responsibility for the environment without the government throwing out money as incentive.
Another hilarious flip-flop from the Romney/Ryan ticket: On October 9th of this year, Romney criticized Obama for not getting this farm bill passed. He said at a rally in Iowa, "People have been waiting a long time for a farm bill. The president has to show the leadership to get the House and Senate together.". HOWEVER this is despite the fact that Paul Ryan is one of the biggest members in Congress--blocking this very bill in the first place. Obama would have to persuade Romney's own running mate, in order to show the 'leadership' he was talking about. A hard task, this close to election time. Neither candidate will give up any ground with this many eyes watching in the days before voters go to the polls. Both campaigns aim to cut farm subsidies by 20% in their agendas into the future. I agree with this, especially after taking the class "Industrial Org/Public Policy" with Chuck Stull. In order to let the farming markets function more naturally, we need to reduce farm subsidies to some degree. In the current system, with fewer farms, and greater economies of scale--it isn't as equitable a system as it could be. Prices are more inflated than they could be. Demand should match supply in an natural equilibrium for this industry, without government intervention in the form of subsidies. A safety net is one thing. Free capital is another.
I have to agree with all of you, subsidies on a narrow selection of crops are too high, and they have more or less crowded out the market for other staples as a result. These subsidies allow feed corn to be so phenomenally cheap that even after being turned into beef, the beef is still cheaper than broccoli. This has resulted in a food system which is slanted towards many of the least healthful foods, while crowding out more healthy meals. I also agree with Slate that conservation needs to become the primary underpinning of the farm bill again. What is happening in our agriculture sector reminds me all too much of what happened in our financial sector over the last decade. Problem is, if the financial sector goes under, we can bail them out, if we have a second dust bowl because we are irresponsibly farming too much marginal land with too little a diversity of crops,there will nothing we can do except pity ourselves.
I believe that Congress made the right decision to let the bill expire, but needs to come up with a bill that can be better applied to the current U.S. agricultural system. Since this bill was enacted during the Great Depression the goal was to provide food to the American people and make sure farms have the ability to stay in business. Now massive farms like Ocean Spray, are benefiting from the subsidy when they really don't need it. The farmers who do need subsidies are small, local farmers that need some insurance if their crops fail. The bill takes the free market system out of agriculture and increases government assistance. This is not something big corporate farms need or should be entitled to.
I would generally agree that it was a good idea to let the farm bill expire in current form. Others have mentioned the political and economic problems involved in the continuation of these subsidy policies, what has not been mentioned is the ecological impact of of these policies. Expanded land use even onto marginally healthy land has forced the use of excess nitrogenous fertilizers exacerbating problems with agricultural runoff. This generally one area where continued government intervention should be looked at under a microscope to not only prevent further abuse but help to remedy the ecological disaster that has resulted from the industrial agriculture complex.
This sentence right here "It continued to reward commodity producers—growers of corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, and cotton—who are already earning record income. " shows precisely one of the areas where our national debt is coming from. It just seems absolutely ridiculous to me that we (as a country) reward the wealthy with even more money. There should be something within the bill that states if farmers are earning above X dollars a year they must adhere to conservation guidelines on a matter of principle. People need to take more responsibility for the environment without the government throwing out money as incentive.
ReplyDeleteAnother hilarious flip-flop from the Romney/Ryan ticket: On October 9th of this year, Romney criticized Obama for not getting this farm bill passed. He said at a rally in Iowa, "People have been waiting a long time for a farm bill. The president has to show the leadership to get the House and Senate together.". HOWEVER this is despite the fact that Paul Ryan is one of the biggest members in Congress--blocking this very bill in the first place. Obama would have to persuade Romney's own running mate, in order to show the 'leadership' he was talking about. A hard task, this close to election time. Neither candidate will give up any ground with this many eyes watching in the days before voters go to the polls.
ReplyDeleteBoth campaigns aim to cut farm subsidies by 20% in their agendas into the future. I agree with this, especially after taking the class "Industrial Org/Public Policy" with Chuck Stull. In order to let the farming markets function more naturally, we need to reduce farm subsidies to some degree. In the current system, with fewer farms, and greater economies of scale--it isn't as equitable a system as it could be. Prices are more inflated than they could be. Demand should match supply in an natural equilibrium for this industry, without government intervention in the form of subsidies. A safety net is one thing. Free capital is another.
I have to agree with all of you, subsidies on a narrow selection of crops are too high, and they have more or less crowded out the market for other staples as a result. These subsidies allow feed corn to be so phenomenally cheap that even after being turned into beef, the beef is still cheaper than broccoli. This has resulted in a food system which is slanted towards many of the least healthful foods, while crowding out more healthy meals. I also agree with Slate that conservation needs to become the primary underpinning of the farm bill again. What is happening in our agriculture sector reminds me all too much of what happened in our financial sector over the last decade. Problem is, if the financial sector goes under, we can bail them out, if we have a second dust bowl because we are irresponsibly farming too much marginal land with too little a diversity of crops,there will nothing we can do except pity ourselves.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Congress made the right decision to let the bill expire, but needs to come up with a bill that can be better applied to the current U.S. agricultural system. Since this bill was enacted during the Great Depression the goal was to provide food to the American people and make sure farms have the ability to stay in business. Now massive farms like Ocean Spray, are benefiting from the subsidy when they really don't need it. The farmers who do need subsidies are small, local farmers that need some insurance if their crops fail. The bill takes the free market system out of agriculture and increases government assistance. This is not something big corporate farms need or should be entitled to.
ReplyDeleteI would generally agree that it was a good idea to let the farm bill expire in current form. Others have mentioned the political and economic problems involved in the continuation of these subsidy policies, what has not been mentioned is the ecological impact of of these policies. Expanded land use even onto marginally healthy land has forced the use of excess nitrogenous fertilizers exacerbating problems with agricultural runoff. This generally one area where continued government intervention should be looked at under a microscope to not only prevent further abuse but help to remedy the ecological disaster that has resulted from the industrial agriculture complex.
ReplyDelete