10 Reasons the Farm Bill Makes No Sense

Congress is gearing up to pass a major farm bill for the first time since 2008, and this year’s bill threatens to be much larger than the last one.

Farm subsidies make political sense for many members of Congress. But they make no practical sense because they damage the economy, hurt the environment, and are grossly unfair.

So in the hopes that the practical will prevail over the political, here are 10 reasons why both the House and Senate should go back to the drawing board with their legislation:

1.) The farm bill is far too costly. George W. Bush vetoed the 2008 farm bill because it “would needlessly expand the size and scope of government.” Unfortunately, Congress overrode his veto and enacted that bill, costing $640 billion over 10 years. Today, the House is considering a farm bill that would cost taxpayers $940 billion over 10 years — 47 percent more than the one that even big-spending President Bush couldn’t stomach.

2.) Food stamp costs have exploded. About four-fifths of the cost of the farm bill is for food stamps. The House bill would trim food stamps by about $2 billion a year — but the costs of food stamps have quadrupled over the last decade from about $20 billion to $80 billion a year. The cut in the House bill is far too tiny after such a huge expansion.

Thanks for referencing that article george76. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at Chris Edwards, the author of the article, and not you.

Regarding the Farm Bill, Mr. Edwards has overlooked the biggest reason why it makes no sense. More specifically, before FDR's activist justices nuked 10th Amendment protected state powers concerning agriculture in Wickard v. Filburn, a previous generation of Constitution-respecting justices had offically clarified the following about Congress's constitutionally limited powers as they relate to intrastate agriculture in United States v. Butler. The Court had clarified in Butler, in terms of the 10th Amendment nonetheless, that the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate agriculture.

"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden (emphasis added)." --United States v. Butler, 1936.

Back when I was a kid in the 60s and 70s, food stamp payments were extremely minimal. Those getting them had to shop carefully and take advantage of surplus food distribution, usually butter and cheese.

My middle class family of 8 had to compete with them shopping for freight damaged food in cans or boxes and even basics like flour and cooking oil.

Not anymore. I'm constantly behind food stamp users in the supermarket line who buy stuff I can't possibly afford: fresh shrimp, the choicest cuts of meat and, as if to rub it in, they ofter drive off in cars I can't afford either.

At least under the old surplus food distribution programs, farmers got the benefit of commodity price support.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.