Farm-bill talks coming in hot with lobbyists watching closely

posted at 4:41 pm on October 10, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

While the issue of the latest iteration of the “farm bill” still waiting to make its way out of the halls of Congress has been largely absent from national headlines (the government shutdown and debt-ceiling fight, of course, absorbing most of the political oxygen), there are plenty of local and regional news outlets across the country just littered with updates on every twist and turn of the legislative process and the bill’s (and bills’) in-limbo status. The provisions of the current farm bill expired on the first of the month, and while the majority of the traditional legislative package is concerned with the federal food stamp program, the geographical devotion to the topic is a testament of just how much skin the agricultural sector has in the game.

Heritage has a handy breakdown of the differences between the farm bill passes by the Senate and then the two decoupled agriculture and food stamps bills passed by the House, and provides a helpful indication of precisely why that might be in their introduction:

Congress continues to treat agriculture as if it were 1933 instead of 2013. Agriculture is a cutting-edge sector of the economy that continues to innovate and produce more food with fewer resources.

Yet, every five years when the farm bill is up for renewal, many legislators, including those who claim to be pro–free market and limited government, push a farm bill that is a model of central planning. Agriculture policy continues to emphasize price supports, supply restrictions, import quotas, government-subsidized international marketing programs for major corporations, and much more. Quite simply, almost any subsidy that can be dreamed of exists in one form or another in the current farm bill.

The farm bill should not be a “holiday” for legislators from free market and limited government principles. Through sound free market reforms, farmers will benefit by having government out of their way so they can have the freedom to make decisions based on market conditions. They will be able to use their land as they see fit and not be harmed by government incentives and controls. Consumers will have choices that best reflect demand and enjoy prices that reflect open competition, not artificial constraints on supply.

Anyhow. Last week, the House moved another step closer to getting their bills into conference, and even amidst the shutdown, the issue hasn’t been forgotten — there are way too many highly vested special interests in this thing to allow that to happen. Politico explains:

Rice is big for Arkansas where the farm bill is already an issue between Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor and his Republican challenger, Rep. Tom Cotton, in the 2014 election. Peanuts are a cash crop important to Georgia and its Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss — Speaker John Boehner’s old pal and a veteran deal maker who came up through agriculture in his early years in the House.

And barley? Well, barley is literally its own political brew: selling for animal feed at one price but also capable of earning as much as one-third higher when “malted” — an important ingredient for beer. Northwest Minnesota is barley country and home to Rep. Collin Peterson, the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee and driving force now behind plans to almost double the barley target price in support of the richer malted market.

All this history is again relevant this week as the House-Senate farm bill talks begin to heat up — with Boehner saying privately that he will finally appoint House conferees.

Sigh. Let the relentless rent-seeking and lobbying begin anew.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Please just dump the entire thing. No subsidies for anything. I know, I know, I am dreaming.

Johnnyreb on October 10, 2013 at 4:44 PM

A.K.A. “Congressional Christmas.”

ThePrez on October 10, 2013 at 4:47 PM

Subsidies:

President Barack Obama has notified Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that his administration will soon start the partial and gradual easing of economic sanctions against Iran, debkafile reports exclusively from its Washington and Jerusalem sources. The reduction would apply to “non-significant” yet “substantial” sanctions, the message said.

http://debka.com/article/23341/Exclusive-Obama-forewarns-Netanyahu-that-sanctions-against-Iran-will-soon-be-partially-lifted

davidk on October 10, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Wait, where’s Ted Cruz out there arguing against these subsidies and putting on his gloves for a fight?

Is that just for big name, no chance of success, but tea party support engendering items like the boondoggle that has become the defund Obamacare effort?

I guess those types of things are much better for your political aspirations, if that’s what you’re into.

;)

Genuine on October 10, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Sigh. Let the relentless rent-seeking and lobbying begin anew.

Eliminating ethanol mandates is too much to hope for, but could we at least move Iowa to the back of the primary calendar?

MJBrutus on October 10, 2013 at 5:05 PM

A 17% partial federal govt. shutdown and its ‘painful.’

Yet another example of how deep the tenacious tentacles of gub’mint are into the very dirt under our feet.

Let it (controlled) burn!

locomotivebreath1901 on October 10, 2013 at 5:06 PM

This is the best example of why we’ll never rid ourselves of Obamacare.

Once the federal government asserts it’s control over a market, the rent-seekers and power-mongers will never give it back to the people.

p0s3r on October 10, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Let the relentless rent-seeking and lobbying begin anew.

Standard democrat procedure.

Murphy9 on October 10, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Ripoff.

pat on October 10, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Tell me the difference between the two parties again?

EddieC on October 10, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Heeeeeeeeeeere piggy-piggy-piggy!

trs on October 10, 2013 at 6:39 PM

Tell me the difference between the two parties again?

EddieC on October 10, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Historically, the GOP half of the bipartisan Party-In-Government has been in charge of narrowly exempting the rent-seekers from the competition-killing mandates the rent-seekers have the Rat half of the PIG put on their competitors.

The Tea Partiers upset that applecart, so Big Business bypassed Bo(eh)ner and went straight to Teh SCOAMT for their PlaceboCare waiver. In response, the only part of PlaceboCare limits El PRL (the legal successor to the GOP) is going to the mat for is the repeal of the medical device tax, and they’re willing to sacrifice not only us but a combination of the “rich” and the businesses who went straight to Teh SCOAMT for their exemption to get back in the game.

Steve Eggleston on October 11, 2013 at 8:49 AM