Skip to comments.The Farm Bill Falls - Conservatives refused to vote for “more of the same” food-stamp spending.
Posted on 06/22/2013 3:39:34 PM PDT by neverdem
In 2008, a mere 14 senators and 109 House members voted against overriding President George W. Bushs veto of the farm bill. Sure, food-stamp spending which compromises about 80 percent of the spending authorized by the bill had significantly increased in recent years. But traditionally, the farm bill, which also subsidizes the agriculture industry, had been one area where Republicans, particularly in affected geographical areas, tended to forgo free-market advocacy.
This time was different.
Since 2008, spending on food stamps has doubled from 40 billion to 80 billion, DeMint continues. These minimal cuts theyre talking about are just slowing this dramatic rate of growth. And the food-stamp program is so out of control, the Ag department now is running ads encouraging people to get on food stamps.
Characterizing claims that the farm bill included reforms as just nonsense, DeMint concluded that the food-stamps program is no longer a safety net. It is a government spending program that is out of control.
There was no reform on either the food-stamps side or really the ag side, agrees Club for Growth president Chris Chocola. On the food-stamp side, you can do the math however you want, but its not a cut, he says, talking about the bills total cost ($940 billion). We think that you should block-grant food stamps to the states. Let them reform them. Its just more of the same, he concluded of the bill, and we cant afford the same.
Ultimately, 62 Republicans voted against the bill, perhaps partially in response to the opposition of the bill by Heritage Action and Club for Growth. While there was an effort to reform farm policy in this years farm bill, the final price tag was too expensive: $940 billion over the next ten years, explains Representative Raul Labrador (R., Idaho) in a statement. That is 56 percent more expensive than the previous farm bill. Labrador was joined by several other conservative members, including Republican Study Committee chair Steve Scalise (R., La.), Representative Marlin Stutzman (R., Ind.), and Representative Tim Huelskamp (R., Kan.). According to a Club for Growth analysis, Huelskamps district would receive the second-biggest subsidy boost from the bill among Republican-held districts.
One Republican aide, who works for one of the members who voted against the bill, says that House conservatives have been concerned about the farm bill for months. Leadership seemed to be comfortable bringing this bill to the floor and comfortable with all of the stimulus provisions still in it, remarks the aide. This wringing of hands because Democrats pulled out at the last second seems somewhat disingenuous, when you knew your conservative base wasnt there. Still, the aide does have praise for one leadership decision: To their credit, they allowed open amendments to the farm bill.
One conservative effort to make the bill more acceptable failed: Stutzman tried to separate the bill into two parts. We need to split the farm bill so that way we can have an honest discussion about the food-stamp program and then also about the farm policies that are actually in the bill itself, he told reporters at a Heritage briefing last week. To make a distinction: Food-stamp policy is not farm policy. They are separate. Stutzman filed an amendment that would separate the bill, but the Rules Committee declared that his request was out of order.
I was pleasantly surprised and certainly proud of Representative Stutzman for taking the lead, says DeMint, and really proud of a lot of Americans who got engaged with the process calling congressmen and senators.
For decades the farm bill comes up and passes almost without debate, despite the fact that its taking us in the wrong direction, he adds. I think conservatives need to stick to their guns here and split this policy out. Lets talk about the food-stamps program separately. Lets talk about a free-market farm policy.
Chocola was dismissive of the GOP leaderships argument that, since Republicans controlled only one-half of one-third of the federal government, it was unrealistic to expect a bill that included aggressive reforms.
Lets clearly illustrate to the American people what the difference is between us and them and let voters decide what they want, he says. And so if youre just going to build government a little slower than they do, what makes you think youll ever inspire people to believe in what Republicans say they believe?
If youre going to lose, you might as well lose on principle, Chocola adds. That people can respect.
Katrina Trinko is an NRO reporter.
But the same elected officials will vote for amnesty..
Looks as though Boner got “boned” by his own folks. Now they should move ahead, have a caucus meeting and elect a new Speaker.
Halt the Food Stamp TOTUS.
The show is about to start.
I just hope you all are happy now that those 300+ pound WalMart folks are going to starve to death.
I seriously doubt that, not if they want to keep their jobs. Check out The Cabal That Quietly Took Over the House.
Almost three quarters of them are in safely conservative districts. Their main worry is being primaried.
Progs always want to dictate everything else about what we do and consume...They can start by rewriting what is and isn’t eligible for purchase with OUR money...
Households CAN use SNAP benefits to buy:
Foods for the household to eat, such as:
— breads and cereals;
— fruits and vegetables;
— meats, fish and poultry; and
— dairy products.
Seeds and plants which produce food for the household to eat.
In some areas, restaurants can be authorized to accept SNAP benefits from qualified homeless, elderly, or disabled people in exchange for low-cost meals.
Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items
Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items
Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome.
reread this part...
“However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome.”...
in this computer day and age, I’m calling a big fat “BULLSH!T” on this one
The liberals will spin this that Republicans want to literally take food out of the mouths of children. I can just hear Rachel Maddow and the MSNBC crowd saying this. Since I know exactly what they will say, there’s no need to watch their programs.
Why are there some heavy poor people in America?
Are you bitter? You sound like a Democrat / moocher.
Is that a joke?
Who in God's name with an IQ over 70 watches that channel, ever?
I think it was tongue in cheek, not a bitter moocher.
Stein’s Law: If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.
“Sustainability” is a concept the left loves to scold the rest of us about. But when the left dreams up a scheme or program, it is never “sustainable” economically. Liberal ideas are only “sustainable” where liberals can also manipulate the results or subsidize them in ways that hide their full costs.
Government welfare programs are a case in point.
Spending in such excessive amounts beyond income is not “sustainable”. A some point government will either become exhausted by the effort to sustain the level of outrageous spending. When economic reality returns, there will be clueless and slackjawed reaction by both supporters and those who have carelessly become dependent upon the program. Wailing, weeping and gnashing of teeth will commence. Major scapegoatting will begin in earnest. Indeed any reason will do except the plain truth.
It is simply not healthy for the character of the nation to have government replace private charity with a government entitlement. This could be solve at any minute by crafting a fully refundable tax credit for donations to approved social aid charities. Indeed, I am willing to wager that the tax credit doesn’t have to be 100%, I bet it could be less than 75%. Charities could compete for people to help, as long as there was a registry of total aid given to every recipient. Charities would enable direct connection between aid providers and recipients. Recipients who needed more could justify more. This would put an end to the “you owe me” mentality that is so corrosive among the recipients.
But there is no power to be derived from this by government, lovers of big government, the collectivists, and the welfare pimps. That is why it has never been talked about.
I know a kid who is going to college and works at a Kroger store. He says that when the frozen snow crab legs come in, the folks with the “food stamp” cards come out of the woodwork and buy them all up.
Let us hope that you are not right. The economic and social damage of amnesty is not even in the same league with the farm bill.
If the Democrats truly believed this way, Obamacare would never have had a chance.
They’ll have absolutely no problem in taxing the hell out of these same items
In 2008, a mere 14 senators and 109 House members voted against overriding President George W. Bushs veto of the farm bill.
Archer Daniels Midlands is sad....
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.