As the press and Congress focus on a trifecta of Obama administration scandals, lawmakers in Washington are moving forward with consideration of a “farm” bill that should be an outrage to conservatives. It doesn’t even deserve to be called a farm bill with so much spending going to food stamps.
The measure easily won approval in Senate and House committees this week and is headed to the Senate floor next week. There’s still an opportunity to scuttle the measure in the House — which happened last year — but only if we turn up the volume.
Virginia’s lone member of the House Agriculture Committee, Vice Chairman Bob Goodlatte (VA-6), was one of only two Republicans to oppose the measure. His amendment relating to the dairy industry failed in committee.
Earlier this week, The Heritage Foundation’s Daren Bakst and Diane Katz released a primer on the bill. Here are seven reasons you should care:
1) It’s not really about farming. The legislation is made up mostly of spending on food stamps. In fact, about 80 percent is dedicated to food stamps and other nutrition programs. Much of the rest goes to costly farm programs supported by special interests.
2) The bill costs nearly $1 trillion. At a time when conservatives are trying to get control of government spending, this bill takes America in the wrong direction. The House version costs $940 billion. And not to be outdone, the Senate bill totals $955 billion.
3) Parochial politics are driving the debate. By combining food stamps with agriculture subsidies in this massive bill, supporters are able to peel off enough Republicans and Democrats to support bad policy — and they admit it. “[Food stamps] should continue to be included purely from a political perspective,” said Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS). “It helps get the farm bill passed.”
4) Agriculture today is vastly different. Like most things coming out of Washington, government hasn’t adapted to the changing landscape of farming. Net farm income is expected to reach its highest level in 40 years.
5) Government subsidies distort the free market. Taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for outdated and ineffective programs that resemble Soviet-style central planning.
6) Big government helps big farms. This bill doesn’t help the little guy as much as it benefits large agriculture enterprises (and even some members of Congress). About 75 percent of large farms collect subsidies compared to just 24 percent of smaller farms.
7) Subsides mean higher taxes and food costs. Someone has to pay for the nearly $1 billion bill, and that falls to the American taxpayer, who faces the double-whammy of also being hit with higher prices on groceries due to tariffs on imports like sugar and market manipulation of dairy products.
So what should conservatives do? The first step is splitting the agriculture portion of the bill from the food-stamp spending. Congress can’t be trusted to enact comprehensive legislation; this is just yet another example.
