There was no 2012 farm bill. Instead, in the fiscal cliff negotiations, Senator Mitch McConnell and Vice President Joe Biden agreed to an extension of the 2008 farm bill through September 31, 2013, with the expectation that a new farm bill will be written in 2013. The delay was a real blessing for taxpayers, who would have been stuck with paying for a potentially exorbitantly expensive set of new “shallow loss”, insurance, and price support farm subsidy programs if the House and Senate Agricultural Committees’ 2012 farm policy proposals had become law. But now attention has turned to the 2013 farm bill, with congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle searching for inefficient, wasteful and outdated programs where federal spending can and should be cut. For seven decades or more, for the most part federal farm programs have consisted of an array of subsidies, regulations, spending programs, and land-use restrictions that waste economic resources, transfer tax payer dollars mainly to rich landowners and wealthy farmers, generate environmental degradation, impose fiscal burdens, and are largely responsible the failure of global trade negotiations. These inefficient and outdated policies are once again up for renewal. They deserve to be heavily scrutinized, and most of them probably scrapped, especially at a time when federal budget deficits have simply become unsustainable.
Learn more at www.AmericanBoondoggle.com.
Discover American Boondoggle: Fixing the Farm Bill Content
FILTER BY DATEAll Time
FILTER BY RELEVANCEMost Recent
FILTER BY CONTENT TYPEAll Content Types
While the direct costs to taxpayers of the sugar program should cause concern and be discontinued, these costs are dwarfed by the indirect costs imposed on consumers, confectioners and bakers by the price support program. The time for eliminating the program is here.
It would be nice if Congress’s passage of the 2014 farm bill indicated the arrival at a cost-effective solution to a problem that required federal involvement. Unfortunately, it seems that good politics trumped good governance—and there’s an explanation as to why.
Agricultural lobbies often make economists who care about the general economic wellbeing of society clutch their heads in their hands. The sugar lobby is a current case in point.
Why do the leading independent science organizations in the US and the country’s top liberal news publications oppose mandatory labeling?
Consumer Reports has been a sacred bible for me... Which makes it all the more distressing that this once venerable institution-in-a-magazine has driven off the science cliff in obeisance to the current hysteria over genetically modified foods.
Food aid should be more about feeding hungry people and less about subsidizing U.S. business.