Skip to comments.Agribusiness lobbyists pretty upset about that farm billís failure right about now
Posted on 06/21/2013 6:09:05 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The House version of the farm bill that failed to glean the necessary votes to pass and move to conference with the Senate’s version on Thursday afternoon certainly might not have been the most watched or well-known piece of legislation hanging over the country, but the fact that it was unexpectedly thwarted was quite the dramatic turn of events on Capitol Hill.
The many farm and agribusiness lobbyists who were relying on the bill’s passage to safeguard the status quo and their countless specially interested, pork-tossing programs were shocked — righteously, indignantly shocked, I say! — and plan to continue to press the House leadership so that they can get theirs, dammit, no matter how much market distortion and taxpayer money it costs the American economy and budget. Via The Hill:
We were shocked. We were watching the vote on TV and in the final minutes were saying what are they doing? This thing isnt going to pass! said one commodity group lobbyist.
Im shocked, said another lobbyist. Our job as agriculture is to go to the House and say Mr. Speaker what is your plan for getting this done?
Lawmakers on the House Agriculture Committee were holding calls and frantic closed-door meetings with lobbyists to discuss their next moves, sources said.
The House bill was heavily backed by commodity groups, from rice and peanut producers in the South to corn, wheat and soy growers in the Midwest to the American Farm Bureau Federation and National Farmers Union.
The gloom in the official statements from farm organizations was pervasive.
“Rather than pass a bill that reduces the deficit by $40 billion while meeting the commitments of a farm bill, the country was treated to more Washington dysfunction, USA Rice Producers’ Group chairwoman Linda Raun said. Patience in farm country is wearing thin.
The heart bleeds.
The bill failed because of a number of Republicans’ insistence that the bill needed to make deeper cuts to both certain farm programs and food stamps (which, I would merely add, have grown about 70 percent in less than five years to an $80 billion/year program), which, when combined with a number of Democrats’ intransigence on allowing what they interpreted as too many, too draconian cuts to food stamps (by a little over $2 billion a year and adding work requirements, gasp!), took the bill down.
As one lobbyist put it, “I dont know how you solve this. If you reduce the food stamp cuts to $16 billion how many Democrats do you gain, how many people do you lose?” One solution might be to end the marriage-of-convenience between food stamps and farm programs so that we can at least have a more transparent and honest debate about the wisdom of federal policy on both, except that neither lobbyists nor many lawmakers would care for that solution — it’s the very omnibus nature of the so-called farm bill that usually helps the farm bill’s spectacular awfulness to speed beneath the radar and garner both urban and rural votes.
It would seem that lawmakers are, for the moment, at an impasse — as Conn Carroll pointed out at the Washington Examiner, that doesn’t seem to bode well for the Senate’s immigration debate, does it?
After the Senate voted 66 to 27 to pass the Farm Bill two weeks ago, the House rejected the bill 234-195 yesterday.
A majority of the House Republican Caucus will never vote for any bill that gives citizenship to those illegal immigrants already in the country. The only hope Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, ever had of moving amnesty through the House was on the backs of Democratic votes. After the Farm Bill, House Republican leaders are reassessing that strategy.
Id think that Democrats decision to sandbag us on the farm bill today makes it obvious how impractical it would be to rely on them for votes on immigration, a GOP leadership aide told Roll Call.
How about they take a whack at ethonol too while they were at it.
What about all the money the federal government has been paying to farmers, to NOT grow specific crops, every year?
As far as “agri-business” lobbyists go, any and all of them connected with the name Monsanto, should be brought up on monopoly charges, RICO charges, and treason.
How should they do that?
How will the ten million acre family farm survive now?
The lobbyists got screwed. Gotta love it.
In my dreams, by putting the next Iowa caucus in July 2016.
Reduce or get rid of the ethonol subsidies....I detest using food material for fuels.
If the government were to eliminate all direct agriculture production subsides, fine. But that wouldn't alter the relative value of the end products in which corn is used.
And farmers should be automatically entitled to recompense FROM Monsanto when Monsanto’s genetics pollutes the farmers’ fields -
not the other way around.
A rose is a rose argument....so they hid the ethonol subsidy in the Renewable Fuel Standard requiring so much of the fuel be composed of mostly corn. You are right, there is no ethonol per se subsidy.
The Renewable Fuel Standard should be repealed (as should all other laws mandating American citizens to engage in, or not engage in, any activity against their will).
The problem, is that Monsanto’s genetics don’t pollute a neighboring field by accident.
Wow. I posted an anti-Monsanto comment on a thread yesterday and got attacked by three FReepers. I made a tongue-in-cheek comment about how the few Monsanto loving FReepers must work for them and one FReeper claimed to be a psychologist and told be I was crazy and another agreed.
For you curiosity: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3033358/posts
They’re trying to control the majority of food production...
Monsanto thinks they’re getting a monopoly,
but the leftists have a more Malthusian intent.
Monsanto doesn’t control any food production. They happened to isolate a genetic characteristic that allowed farmers to raise, especially corn and soybeans, in a far more economic and environmentally benign fashion than previously possible. Given the choice in the marketplace, farmers universally adopted the Monsanto technology. Some farmers tried to adopt it without paying for it and got caught.
My late brother-in-law often joked that the only piece of essential farm equipment was a hat so the farmer didn’t get sunburned going to the mailbox to get their government check.
So... how long you been working there at Monsanto?
Actually, I’m a farmer.
translation: We paid yinz guys for a pork-laden farm bill, and by gawd yinz are gonna GIVE us a pork-laden farm bill!
Well, THAT ought to throw everyone in a tizzy.
Who’da thought anyone but Monsanto cared about good and plentiful food production?
Careful, if you understand the tiniest bit of what Monsanto does, idiot Luddites will accuse you of working for them.
Just end the mandate and let the market set the price. Toss in all those goofy subsidies and watch food prices tumble. I mean wouldn’t it do the GOP good to say to the little guy, “we helped reduce your food prices”?
The other dirty secret is that the “family farm” is gone. It’s all big business, even organics. That’s why they need to tie it to food stamps. Without it you can’t get the Dems to vote to give even more subsidies to big business. They need a cover story.
I wasn’t voting for ADM’s tax breaks and special subsidies, I was voting for the urban poor!
No it is not. I know several farmers who own and farm their family farms. Of course they probably will not be able to pass it on to the next generation. The inheritance taxes will force the sale of the farm and equipment.
OK, I stand corrected by gross sales. It looks pretty stable, but subsistence level for a very long time:
About 75% have gross sales below $50K a year. It’s curious that they’d break out the income and not the gross acreage. Only 2% of “farms” generate more than $1 million in gross sales annually.
So that’s really quite misleading. I suspect the Ag Dept. benefits from the veneer of “family farming”.
All the farmers I know, that I consider “family farms” are pretty small and very poor. Given that the number has been flat since 1996, farming, family farming, is just getting worse and worse as an occupation.
Now if you are talking about wheat, corn and soybeans then you are mostly right. Unless they are growing for a seed company most small farms don't bother. They raise things that have a higher return.
But there are still small and medium sized farms that are family owned. Although in some cases they are like one family I know that owns a very successful small business that they started to bring in a little extra cash for the farm. The business has far outstripped the farm in income but they still own the farm and one of the daughters and her husband took it over.
I am in IL. I don’t know a farmer without a side business or a wife with a job/healthcare in town. You saw the stats, no?
There are only 43K farms with gross, not net, but gross income of $1 million or above. The majority of farmers, the vast majority are just scraping by. It’s always been a tough business.
Corporate farming or niche farming is the only way to turn a reasonable profit given all the work and risk. My point is that farm subsidies benefit the 1100 or so corporate farmers. The numbers are broken out to hide that.
Accurate. Most family farms barely break even.
How did monsato pollute the farmers field?
It's a START!
I own property in a farming county in Iowa.
300,000 acres, 700 farms.
Not even a half-dozen collect more than token amounts for wildlife and runoff acres.
Quite a few more have crop insurance, but I’m not sure the farm bill kicks in much for that, I believe it’s mostly self-supporting.
That said, the land is worth $5k-$10k per acre, and farmers make at least $300-$400 per acre.
Somewhere around 90% of American grown food comes from family farms.
Not that you'd recognize then as 'family' anymore, since the IRS has forced them to contort themselves into all sorts of odd corporate looking organizations, but they're still run by farm families.