Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack expressed his anger about the way the news media responded to the failed Farm Bill, saying the real losers are farmers, ranchers and small businesses in rural America, Chris Clayton reports for DTN/The Progressive Farmer. Vilsack told Clayton, "The focus of the political writers
and reporters has been on the gamesmanship and which political leaders
won and lost. The focus has to be on the losers in the
countryside. . . . This is a historic failure. There is just no other way to
describe it."
This is the second time in less than a year the House failed to pass a farm bill that's come out of committee with bipartisan support, while the Senate has twice passed a farm bill during that time, notes Clayton. Vilsack said, "I think the concern and the focus needs to be on those who lost, and it's not necessarily the speaker of the House or the majority leader, it's the farmers and ranchers in this country who need certainty in agricultural policy. It's the livestock producers who need a resumption of disaster assistance. It's specialty-crop producers and organic growers who need the resumption of grant programs and assistance to allow them to continue to expand one of the fastest-growing segments of agriculture." (Read more)
National news media gave scant attention to the Farm Bill until it failed in the House last week, writes David Rogers of Politico, who has covered it closely. "Much will be written now about how the defeat spells the end of the old Bob Dole-George McGovern, rural-urban, farm-food stamp coalition in Congress. As agriculture has gotten more consolidated and food stamps more costly in a bad economy and post-welfare reform world, those strains are very real," he writes. "The bill remains one of the great untold political stories of this Congress, not just for the regional intrigue but the opportunity it offers to reshape a historic safety net — important to food and the land, the poor and a vital piece of the American economy."
Rogers says the bill has been "the only real effort by Congress this summer to try to come together and find savings to ease the burden of sequestration that is bleeding the daily operations of government. In marking up the annual Agriculture Department budget recently, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) lamented loudly that discretionary spending was being cut while mandatory funds for subsidies and nutrition programs went up. But when handed a chance to bend that curve and save close to $40 billion, three of his subcommittee chairmen voted no on the farm bill." (Read more)
Two of the bill's main issues were food stamps and crop insurance, but the there "will be no impact on food stamps, which account for about 75 percent of farm bill spending, and crop insurance, now the largest part of the safety net for farmers," notes Charles Abbott of Reuters. "Both programs are permanently authorized and would stay in operation if the current law is allowed to lapse, funded via annual appropriations bills." (Read more) Those who want to pass a bill are still figuring out the best way to do that in a Congress that seems to have lost "any collective capacity to legislate as an organic whole," as Rogers puts it.
This is the second time in less than a year the House failed to pass a farm bill that's come out of committee with bipartisan support, while the Senate has twice passed a farm bill during that time, notes Clayton. Vilsack said, "I think the concern and the focus needs to be on those who lost, and it's not necessarily the speaker of the House or the majority leader, it's the farmers and ranchers in this country who need certainty in agricultural policy. It's the livestock producers who need a resumption of disaster assistance. It's specialty-crop producers and organic growers who need the resumption of grant programs and assistance to allow them to continue to expand one of the fastest-growing segments of agriculture." (Read more)
National news media gave scant attention to the Farm Bill until it failed in the House last week, writes David Rogers of Politico, who has covered it closely. "Much will be written now about how the defeat spells the end of the old Bob Dole-George McGovern, rural-urban, farm-food stamp coalition in Congress. As agriculture has gotten more consolidated and food stamps more costly in a bad economy and post-welfare reform world, those strains are very real," he writes. "The bill remains one of the great untold political stories of this Congress, not just for the regional intrigue but the opportunity it offers to reshape a historic safety net — important to food and the land, the poor and a vital piece of the American economy."
Rogers says the bill has been "the only real effort by Congress this summer to try to come together and find savings to ease the burden of sequestration that is bleeding the daily operations of government. In marking up the annual Agriculture Department budget recently, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) lamented loudly that discretionary spending was being cut while mandatory funds for subsidies and nutrition programs went up. But when handed a chance to bend that curve and save close to $40 billion, three of his subcommittee chairmen voted no on the farm bill." (Read more)
Two of the bill's main issues were food stamps and crop insurance, but the there "will be no impact on food stamps, which account for about 75 percent of farm bill spending, and crop insurance, now the largest part of the safety net for farmers," notes Charles Abbott of Reuters. "Both programs are permanently authorized and would stay in operation if the current law is allowed to lapse, funded via annual appropriations bills." (Read more) Those who want to pass a bill are still figuring out the best way to do that in a Congress that seems to have lost "any collective capacity to legislate as an organic whole," as Rogers puts it.
No comments:
Post a Comment