Can Congress Avert a Plunge Off the ‘Dairy Cliff’?
“I think it will come down to how the overall fiscal cliff negotiations come out,” said Darisse. “One of the reasons we haven’t gotten a bill yet is that it’s very difficult to get major legislation during an election year.”
According to Darisse, both proposals contain budget savings. “I think any part of a package needs offsets to pay for things, or as part of a broader deficit package,” he said.
The Farm Bill in both chambers consolidates programs with similar goals and eliminates direct payments, payments that went to a producer based on how much land he or she farms and their historical production. “It’s a payment that they get whether or not they produce crop on that land,” Darisse said.
The two chambers have different approaches on direct payment’s replacement. “There are significant differences between the approaches, but it’s not something I think could hold the bill up,” Darisse said.
Republican leadership’s inaction has earned harsh words from Senate leadership.
Back in October, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, said, “It is unbelievable that we’re in this position now where the Farm Bill will expire and create so much uncertainty for farmers, ranchers, and small businesses. The Senate came together in a bipartisan way and we passed the Farm Bill. The House Agriculture Committee came together in a bipartisan way to pass a Farm Bill. It’s absolutely unacceptable that the House Republican leadership couldn’t devote just one day to rural America and the 16 million jobs across the country that rely on agriculture.”
Even though the Farm Bill cleared a Republican-controlled committee, the sticking point within the GOP caucus is that there is a split of support: some who believe there is not enough reform and some who believe there is too much. More conservative Republicans also say the legislation allocates too much money to food stamps.
The version passed by the Senate would cut $4.5 billion in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) over years, a Congressional Budget Office analysis said. The House is looking to cut $16 billion over 10 years from the program.
The number of people receiving SNAP benefits is at a record high, reaching $46.6 million as of December, according to the USDA. Whether representatives feel it is wrong to make cuts during a time when more people are asking for assistance or not, regional ties are proving to be a strong factor in deciding support for the legislation, as those representing farming districts urge their colleagues towards a vote on the House floor.
“I will continue to work with Chairman Lucas, my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee and House leadership to push for a vote on the version of the Farm Bill passed back in July by the House Agriculture Committee,” said conservative Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) last month.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D), whose state of New York ranks first in cottage cheese production and third in mozzarella and cheddar cheese production, called on the House last week to take action before year’s end. Schumer specifically voiced concern with the reenactment of the MILC program.
According to Schumer, the dairy industry has already felt a serious negative impact from the lack of a final Farm Bill and dairy farmers are already missing out on payments from the MILC program during a time of extremely high feed prices due to the U.S. drought of 2012—the most severe and extensive drought in at least 25 years, the USDA said.
“The ‘dairy cliff’ is fast approaching, and without a House Farm Bill before year’s end, it will be consumers and dairy producers alike that go over the edge,” said Schumer.
In both cases, House passage of the Senate Farm Bill is the only resolution, Schumer said.
No, no, no-o-o-o! Don’t “fix” a damned thing. Let.It.Burn!! Add fuel! Fan as necessary! Rinse and repeat! Let the whippings continue until morale improves. Let’s have the entire federal government blown up and brought down.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/52005
You better be prepared
This article is total BS! Meaning, brown sugar…. The most socialist programs we have in the States are for ag. To hell w/ the “price supports,” & enough of Moscow in D.C. I came from a farming family & we would always laugh at how stupid the gov’t was to pay us for growing nothing, or sending us money as price supports. One farmer friend of ours actually made more from not planting & price supports than he did selling his crops. Let the dairy socialism END now! Enough is enough!
I like farmers, I like cows, I like dairy products — most of which, alas are dietarily now off limits — I also like free markets. I understand that dairy farming will never be a completely “free” market, but unfortunetley this is part of a monstrous AG bill and if you get into negotiations about which programs are “good” for the country you end up with the whole shibang and it is one of the most socialist parts of Federal spending. So sorry, if you gonna “Got MilK’ you may be paying more for it — for the “Good of the Country” and our grandchildren.
Ban all agricultural subsidies and protection schemes! Let the market decide how much a gallon of milk or pound of beef should cost. Most of the farm subsidy money today goes to frickin’ millionaires anyway.
How dumb is the federal gubmint? Up until recently it heavily subsidized every gallon of ethanol produced from corn in the US. The federal EPA requires that fuel companies have to include a certain percentage of corn ethanol in their gas. Yet there are laws and price supports to prevent the import of ethanol produced from sugar cane in South America. Sugar cane ethanol actually yields more BTU’s per gallon than it takes to produce, unlike the utter stupidity of corn ethanol.
Corruption, stupidity, and folly.
Actually it’s the lobbying strength of the sugar industry; they want to keep prices high; so, no sugar cane imports from Brazil thanks to the tariffs.
Those last 3 posts are right on. Let the free enterprise control the situation as much as possible. We could also legalize the growing of hemp, which could replace corn as the source for ethanol.
The article exemplifies the reason why I quit the Republican Party and quit conservativism and went independent.
There’s nothing ‘conservative’ about farm subsidies. Just as there’s nothing ‘conservative’ about foreign aid, or huge standing militaries, or drug wars, or gun licensing and registration, or the DHS and TSA, or…any other type of government control.
Government intervention in the markets is not capitalism. It’s socialism, at best. WE haven’t had a free market system since at least 1913. An argument could be made for not having had one since the Civil War.
‘Negative liberty’ lookit up.
Power not specifically given to the government resides in the people. Period.
The Constitution means what it says and says what it means, or else you’ve given up freedom for government tyranny and control.
I understand how you could quit the Republican Party (I did too), but do not understand how you could quit conservatism unless you have decided to refudiate conservative principles such as the pursuit of: constitutionally limited government, lower taxes, real (not fiat) money, wars only with a formal declaration (except, temporarily, in an actual emergency where immediate executive action is critical (e.g., a massive nuclear strike inbound)), complete adherence to the Constitution (without emanations from penumbras AKA Griswold), and etc.
Conservatives in Name Only (CINOs) call those of us who believe that the Constitution is the fundamental law of our land, ‘purists’. They are Republicans who cause the progressive rot that is intended to destroy our republic. They say that we are unwilling to compromise our principles. The last part is true. Progressive Republicans, on the other hand, will always compromise in favor of: more taxes, more government, undeclared wars, fiat money, any progressive violation of our Constitution, etc.
Sorry for all the parenthetical clauses (life is complicated and has numerous, but hopefully not progressive, exceptions).
Here’s a shock – I have no friggin’ idea of those programs are good, bad, or indifferent. They SOUND like outdated pork barrels, probably being milked (can you really milk a pork barrel? that’s how much I know about farming) by the corporate megafarmers. OTOH, I remember when they cut some ancient subsidies back in Massachusetts and some small farms that had been around for centuries finally folded, just went to grass until they went to condo. Sure they’d been uneconomic for a generation, but they were also nice to have around. And if the price of milk doubles, we’ll just make it up in food stamps anyway. So – I dunno.
Momma always said, “Don’t cry over spilt milk.” Farming subsidies are out of control. Farming, as an industry has had their butter spread on both sides for them. Since no one can get a handle on the parts that need to be trimmed, it turns out everybody who was milking the taxpayer for all he was worth is going to find the cup on the other teat.
Those who suckle too long at the government teat will get creamed when the free cheese runs out. Like lactose intolerant dairy farmers gorging on cheesecake and buttermilk, the day of reckoning is near.
Sorry, couldn’t resist. Good post.
Government props up industries when they cannot compete themselves. Farm subsidies usually get passed but this shows that the industry isn’t as powerful as it once was. Good riddance. Let people buy milk and corn at a free market price. Supply and demand actually works.
Funny how when it comes to passing a “farm bill” everyone starts talking about how critical this legislation is to the family farm, although over 80% of all expenditures from said legislation go to food stamps or “SNAP”. Having grown up on a farm it is my experience that almost every single responsible farmer would gladly give up all government subsidies so long as the government stopped interfering and telling them how they can (or more often can’t) use their own land.
Not only telling you what you can and can’t grow, but to whom you can and cannot sell your crops to.
I can’t sell milk to my neighbor because it’s raw. Even if he or she would prefer to buy raw milk. I can’t sell chicken or lamb to my neighbor unless it is processed in a federally inspected processing plant. A state inspected plant isn’t good enough.
But I can feed said milk, eggs, chicken, lamb etc to my family. . . for now.
I can see having standards in food processing. Particularly where there is one or more middle men in the chain. But if I want to buy raw milk direct from a dairy farmer I should be able to without government interference.
What I choose to put in my body is my choice, not the governments.
But if they give you money, there are going to be strings attached. Eliminate the subsidies, let the free market work, and the price will settle on what it’s worth to a willing buyer.
You point to a really good issue. The federal government has abused the commerce clause without any opposition from the states….except in a few instances of the durn gun debates. Agri producers and processors should ONLY be subjected to federal laws when ‘inter-state’ marketing, processing and sales are involved. Now if states and or producers brought back the concept of ‘local’ production and processing, that would eliminate a lot of fed reg’s and stop or reverse a lot the agri consolidation and centralization created processor conglomerates. States could then enact its own state regulated inspections based on a minimum number existing fed standards such as sanitation and plant safety, etc. Keep in mind also, that of the Constitution, it can be amended and only the First and Second Amendments cannot be amended or repealed!
“so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, ”
Having the USDA is fine, but complying should be voluntary. In a free country people should be able to buy food with the USDA mark or food without it. If having the mark is actually safer, then people/the market will demand it.
But mandating that it is the only way for food to be sold is to require the mark of the Beast…. unholy total government control, and only this beast.
Walt, you can’t LEGALLY sell milk to your neighbor, but I doubt that the federal government could stop the transaction. We killed the 55 mph speed limit with radar detectors and nearly universal non-compliance. Don’t go Galt, go Mexican! All cash transactions, no paperwork, no regulations, no hay problema! A local Mexican car repair business has inspired me to pay cash at every non-chain restaurant and small business. I have taxes deducted from my paycheck to feed the beast, but no reason I can’t pay cash in hopes that others will keep the money local.
I would like to see the farm bill go down in flames. There’s something horribly wrong with the government redistributing money while creating economic incentives to restrict supply and reduce productivity. Similar problems with weakening the work requirement for welfare, extending unemployment insurance to 99 weeks, and expanding the number of people on food stamps.
The sale of raw milk is controlled at the state level–last I heard. I buy it in Ok, and its the best milk I ever had. Learned about it from the Weston A Price Foundation. Check out their site. Also Rand Paul has some bill out their to protect it’s sale and production from being blocked by the federal grub mint.
They will pass it after they have had the leadership elections at the beginning of the year and they are safely in power.
Let’s end all subsidies and tax breaks and try that free enterprise thing.
In the future, do not ever vote for any Congressman who votes to reelect Boehner as Speaker of the House in 2013! Boehner is the Republican version of the French surrender monkey.
Stagflation explained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTz_tx460EY
I’m hopeful that NO agri subsides of any kind find themselves relegated to the history books. Today, the human and livestock foodstuffs producers are relatively diversified as oposed to a different time in history hen they weren’t. its well time now that they’ve learned from the agri commodities markets and the processors how to manipulate and control the economics, that they themselves apply the same principle mechanics.
Sure, in the short run some producers may be hurt. However, in the longer run, it would be the ‘producer’ manipulating and controlling market prices for themselves for a change. We no longer need the corrupted agri commodities markets to effect national and global price fixing. Local and many smaller regional commodties markets controlled by the producers is all we need.
A positive side affect of this, is that it would allow for the small producer to come back to supply “local” processor demands for such things as livestock feed mills, flour mills, bakeries, creameries, etc. The larger producers can more than effectively service the consolidated and centralized conglomerate processors. It could allow the ‘states’ to enact grain reserve warehousing programs similar to the old federal warehousing programs.
So many benefits to getting rid of the federal government dictating to the producer and organized corrupted commodities markets price fixing. Time for the producer to take the role of control and manipulation. The only thing needed from the federal government or private sector, is insurance programs.
Actually I meant to say “…agri subsides of any kind find themselves relegated to the history books. DELETE THE “NO”
Sorry about that mistype!
We are supposed to be worried that some grotesquely expensive pork barrel spending is at risk?
Seriously?
When did this become a leftist website?
Not to worry, it’s just filler between the ads.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is actually a patch of an older, worse law signed by Truman that Congress doesn’t have the guts to overhaul.
I say let it lapse, and maybe Congress will actually fix the base law. Hopefully by getting the Gov’t out of agriculture (fat chance).
The key phrase is: “…that would prevent subsidies and agriculture policy from reverting to price controls set in the 1940s,…”
Why not repeal the the 1940s price control legislation?
It sounds like the reversion to price controls is the problem, not ending price supports.
First, a legal distinction must be made between real farmers and the giant conglomerates that call themselves farmers. The conglomerates should get no subsidies
If something is claimed to be unhealthy, ie. tobacco, the real farmers raising tobacco should be given x years to find another crop and then any subsidy should be stopped. Any money rolling around in the pocket of the Agriculture Department could well be used for well trained and honest inspectors. I would like to know that the food I am buying is clean and free from contamination. I found a worm in a package of frozen spinach once and a bug in a can of campbell’s soup……this should not happen. Many of the regulations make no sense and merely force farmers to jump through hoops trying to obey them. Let those congresspeople from the farm states earn their money by reviewing them and disgarding those that are ridiculous. I think genuine farmers should earn a decent amount for their crops. It is hard work and they should be paid well I don’t see any reason why the American consumer should pay the giant farm conglomerates any sort of subsidy.