-
Immigration and the ‘Best and Brightest’
June 10, 2013 | 94 comments
-
Ken Cuccinelli Gets in the Game
June 3, 2013 | 11 comments
-
Memorial Day in Richmond
May 28, 2013 | 31 comments
-
Catholic Culture In America
May 23, 2013 | 35 comments
-
Earth Day 2013: The Papal Edition
April 22, 2013 | 22 comments
The Public Policy
GOP Needs Street Cred on Farm Subsidies
Out-flanked on the right by Debbie Stabenow?
Having long been appalled by America’s Soviet-style system of agriculture, I continue to doubt the Republican Party’s seriousness regarding reform, i.e., budget cutting, of this improvident system of rent-seeking by one of the wealthier sectors of the economy.
Now, I fear, Republicans may be upstaged and out-flanked by the Democrats. If this happens more power to the party of Jefferson and Jackson and shame on the party of Lincoln.
Senate Democrats are seriously considering cutting farm subsidies as part of a forlorn attempt to put together a “balanced” substitute for the straight-out cuts to discretionary spending, share and share alike, between domestic and defense spending.
I refer, of course, to the dreaded “sequestration” soon upon us. I have previously written on how I have learned to love the sequestration. Given the intransigence of the Senate and White House on any rationale cuts of domestic spending (except for defense) or restructuring of entitlements, there appears to be no other way to rein in Washington’s mad rush to national ruin. As an old friend of mine said, sometimes you need to hit a donkey over the head with a 2 x 4.
Notwithstanding my embrace of the blunt instrument of sequestration, I certainly appreciate that, in a more rational world, we should set priorities and cut those programs that are useless, unjust, and of low priority relative to higher ones such as protecting international shipping lanes with a robust naval force. The House GOP caucus has, in fact, clearly stated their hope of doing so on a bipartisan basis only to be rebuffed with more calls by the President for tax revenue.
Now it seems that the Senate Democrats are looking to cut direct subsidies to farmers as an offset in sequester bargaining as reported last week by David Rogers in Politico. The idea would be to cut the agriculture subsidies and restore other spending that would otherwise suffer from the impending across-the-board sequestration cuts commencing on March 1. Unfortunately, they also want a 50-50 blend of cuts and taxes. But they are onto something regarding the reduction or elimination of some subsidies for agriculture.
Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), a liberal stalwart and long-time advocate for labor, has indicated her desire to cut, in Rogers’s words, “an outdated system of direct cash payments to [agricultural] producers that still costs taxpayers close to $5 billion a year and has long been a target for reformers.”
New estimates released last week by the Congressional Budget Office “peg the 2013 cost at $4.96 billion and $54.4 billion through 2023,” writes Rogers.
“I would prefer obviously to do it in the context of the farm bill but I cannot defend direct payments,” says Senator Stabenow. Regarding the ultimate amount of budget cuts the Senate majority finally settles upon, she stated that “Whatever is done has to be agriculture’s contribution to deficit reduction.”
She has been promised credit for any savings when she begins another attempt at a mark-up of a new Farm Bill in late March or April post-sequestration.
Stabenow would prefer to have dealt with direct cash payments in the reauthorization of the new Farm Bill, over which her committee has jurisdiction. However, debate over the reauthorization bill was discontinued when Republicans blocked floor debate and went with a one-year extension of the status quo in January that continued the crop payments for the time being.
Senator Stabenow savaged the GOP, claiming the partial farm bill extension, as part of the fiscal cliff deal, was “clearly” a means of protecting big government subsidies, as reported by Amanda Peterka, an E&E reporter, in Greenwire.
According to Peterka direct payments are paid to farmers regardless of how many acres are actually planted in a given year.
On C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers” series, the Chairwoman went after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) for leaving the ag subsidies in place while cutting energy, conservation, and disaster programs for farmers and ranchers.
“They say they want more cuts, but when it comes to wealthy farmers that have high prices and don’t need subsidies, they seem very willing to jeopardize the rest of agriculture in order to be able to protect those subsidies,” said Stabenow. “That’s wrong in my book.”
About the Author
G. Tracy Mehan, III served at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the administrations of both Presidents Bush. He is a consultant in Arlington, Virginia, and an adjunct professor at George Mason University School of Law.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (14) | Leave a comment
More Articles by G. Tracy Mehan, III
More Articles From The Public Policy
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/12/gop-needs-street-cred-on-farm
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Thatcher Legacy
- Of Weiner and Women
- Way Beyond the Lemonade Stand
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
MelvinNC| 2.12.13 @ 7:05AM
Republicans being upstaged by Democrats. Hmm imagine that. And that is when the Democrats are not even trying. I don't know how many times I have been derided that I'm being to hard on the Republican leadership, to critical, and should give em a break, because after-all they Republican Leadership has lost how many National and state and local elections.
The Elitist Republican Leadership could not wipe their own backsides, even if they had a U Tube video with instructions. They would still screw it up and end up with a messy and stinky affair.
The Democrats could send a trained monkey to take on the RNC and the monkey would win hands down.
But yet do we hear of any Republicans handing in their resignations with heads hanging low in abject failure No! the blame their failures on the Tea Party.
The Republican ideology is synonymous with one thing and that is, "Failure."
Pecos Pete| 2.12.13 @ 8:16AM
Farm subsidy programs are a two-edged sword. Congress should be very careful as they attempt to wrap their regulatory authority around this octopus.
Farmers and ranchers are being ingulfed by current regulations. If subsidies are reduced inappropriately, the only surviving providers of food will be very large corporations who have the staff to meet the regulatory burden and the financial foundation to invest in the land, equipment and energy necessary for production.
Imagine a KingOcare for agriculture. Makes one shudder at the thought.
JimH| 2.12.13 @ 9:24AM
Paul Harvey notwithstanding, I think most agricultural production these days comes from the likes of ADM. The GOP needs to be seen as pro market not pro business. Eliminate all subsidies.
Solo| 2.12.13 @ 11:54AM
I have a difficult time believing that the likes of Debbie Stabenow is the least bit concerned about our spending problem.
It is far, far more likely that she is interested only in ham-stringing a traditionally conservative voting block and turning them against their elected representatives among the republican party.
I say the republicans should make her a deal:
Eliminate the federal tax deduction for state taxes paid in exchange for eliminating subsidy payments to farming operations which till more than 10,000 acres.
The federal tax deduction for state taxes paid is nothing more than a federal subsidy for high tax states like California and New York...in other words "Blue States". It's one of the few tax deductions that democrats truly support and it's easy to see why.
That'll send Ole Debbie screaming from the room.
JD| 2.12.13 @ 11:57AM
"It's one of the few tax deductions that democrats truly support " - hogwash. They support virtually all deductions. They're the authors of virtually all deductions! Deductions are social engineering through the tax code - the Left-wing alternative to rate cuts.
They do campaign from time to time on exempting the rich from deductions, but that's just more class warfare.
JD| 2.12.13 @ 11:55AM
Government shouldn't subsidize anything. That subsidies are "needed" to counter the perverse impacts of government micromanagement is a poor excuse.
This is how Democrats function: they impose burdens on you, then "counter" them with "tax credits", "subsidies", or "deductions." I put all of those terms in quotes because their names are more important to the Democrats than their substance. The names allow Democrats to claim that the recipients are benefiting from government and living off their fellow taxpayers, and thus they owe "society". It's "you didn't build that" built into the tax code.
That the sum of government's impacts on the person (taxes, regulations, and "subsidies") leaves the person profoundly worse off than he would be with none of the above does not matter. The existence of the nominal "subsidy" means that he owes "society" an open-ended, eternal debt, and Democrats are always justified in asking more from him. And woe unto anyone who dares ask how those members of "society" who receive the benefits of the Democrats' redistribution have come to be owed it!
A fine example of this perverse logic came from Jack London late last week, when he argued, on the thread about fracking that it wouldn't have been developed without "government investment". I googled Huffpo's lies to that effect, posted them, and thoroughly debunked them (summary: government investment was a drop in the bucket). What did Jack have to say?
Crickets.
RJ| 2.12.13 @ 12:05PM
Well, Debbie Stabenow, like a broken clock, can be right sometimes. Congratulations. Yes, we should get rid of the Stalinist agricultural command system put in place during the New Deal. Too much politics for special interest benefits have been inserted into the economy. Get taxpayer dollars out of the loan, subsidy and bailout business.
Ronsch| 2.12.13 @ 12:34PM
I dno't know...Maybe try letting the producers sell their surpluses at, oh, market rate as food, instead of to the BS ethanol producers at subsidized prices, and maybe they could all win...
Job| 2.12.13 @ 1:13PM
Are farm subsidies welfare? Where are they in the entitlement continuum?
GOP Needs Cred Period.
TLP| 2.12.13 @ 2:35PM
Farm Subsidies are part of the Problem.
Think: Ethanol.
Everything in the Grocery Store that has anything to do with Corn, is through the Roof.
Anybody who just landed in the United States, would think that we have a Shortage of Beef Cows.
Over $5 a lb. for Hamburger?
They want $10 for a Chuck Steak, that I paid $4 for, just a coupla years ago.
Anything made with Corn Syrup costs more than it used to.
We've seen Food Riots in Mexico, where Corn is a Mucho Staple.
The subsidies for Ethanol are Killing our Car Engines.
We have people Starving to Death, all over the World, yet we use FOOD for Gasoline, instead of the Oceans of Oil, that these same Politicians refuse to let us Harvest.
What has happened to Common Sense and Reason, in My Country?
RJ| 2.12.13 @ 3:10PM
And just think what our government could do with if it had more revenue.
N8tivTxn| 2.12.13 @ 10:58PM
Anybody who just landed in the United States, would think that we have a Shortage of Beef Cows.
www.gosanangelo.com/news/2012/.....artner=RSS
Bovine gestation is 9 mo
Porcine gestation is 3 mo, 3 wks & 3 da
Pork, the other white (flavorless) meat!
For when you can't afford BEEF.
Job| 2.13.13 @ 5:41PM
What has happened to Common Sense and Reason, in My Country?
Its the three day news cycle "on steriods and stilts" (fete Who Knows): the three day news cycle has been a problem since Moses ascended Sinai to get the ten Commandments and in this info age its even worse.
Benghazi is as far away as Saturn right now and OJ Simpson or some EX Cop cop Killer or some similar distraction is always on the ready for media fodder should the wrong news crop while the great Evil Power of the Air changes the channel to focus on some other fire the good ole USA has to run to in the world.
Mr. Dolphin| 2.13.13 @ 2:21PM
Solo is correct to be skeptical of Senate Ag Chair Stabenow, much more correct that Mr. Mehan. Both Sens. Stabenow and McCaskill want to eliminate the direct payment immediately on principle. Mr. Mehan seems to think it his same principle, but he is mistaken. Unlike Mr. Mehan, the good Senators have absolutely no intention of reducing spending, they wish to transfer part of the 16% of Farm Bill budget spent on farmers to increase the the 80% of the Farm Bill budget spend on food stamps. Mr. Mehan's principles have been hijacked by those sneaky Democrats. Instead of subsidizing Mr. Mehan's political and cultural allies, he has decided to fund his political and cultural foes.
In the specific matter of the Direct Payment itself, the new Farm Bill (Not really so new, both Senate and House Ag Committees reported out bills in 2011 but the Chambers could not act.) eliminates the Direct Payment completely. All the Houses of Congress must do is vote on the 2011 dated Bills to end the Direct Payments. The end of the Direct Payment will be little mourned on the farm since it has always been an embarrassment to many of us.
I would like to see the Direct Payment funds be spent on Crop Insurance or Conservation, both of which contribute to a sustainable safety net for farms.