Do you remember the U.S. budget fights of the past year?
For a time, it seemed the world might end because of the soaring deficit and bloated debt and the dangers of the “fiscal cliff.”
The Democrats and Republicans were in gridlock, and so an automatic budget cutting law was triggered.
Congress is still supposed to be working on legislation with a goal of more targeted spending and smart cuts, but the two sides remain so far apart that little is getting done.
Read Also
Critical growing season is ahead for soybeans
What the weather turns out to be in the United States is going to have a significant impact on Canadian producers’ prices
The farm bill is caught up in this clash with the battle carried out mostly in the House of Representatives.
The House agriculture committee drafted a bill last year, but the Republican House leader did not bring it to the floor because he was not sure it would receive enough votes to pass. So they passed a one-year extension to the existing five-year bill.
A new version was brought to the floor June 21.
Like the Senate version of the bill, which passed with bipartisan support, the bill would have eliminated direct payments to farmers but increased support for crop insurance. It also funded disaster support for livestock producers and reduced food stamp funding.
Over all, the Senate’s bill would have reduced spending by $2.4 billion a year and the House bill would have cut $3.8 billion, due mainly to much deeper cuts to food stamps.
However, several controversial amendments were added to the house bill, increasing opposition. For the first time ever, the House voted down a farm bill, 195 for and 234 against.
It was an embarrassment for the majority Republican leadership, which could not get the support of the party’s Tea Party wing.
Most of the minority Democrats opposed the bill, but 62 Republicans joined the opposition, although for different reasons.
The failure marks what could be a breakdown of the traditional rural-urban coalition that ensured farm bills passed fairly easily in the past.
The farm bill is a hybrid. It creates farm support programs that rural politicians like, but 80 percent of the bill’s funding is spent on providing cheap food to poor people, attracting the support of urban legislators.
This time, however, the food stamp program, now known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), was attacked.
Tea Party Republicans wanted to slash SNAP funding even further than in the bill and impose restrictions on its use to reduce what they say is rampant program abuse.
The Democrats said the burden of deficit cutting should not be on the backs of poor people.
The one-year extension of the 2008 farm bill expires in September. Politicians are scrambling to determine what to do next.
Without passage of a farm bill, farm legislation would revert to a 1949 law that could lead to steep price increases on some items for consumers, including milk.
The most important programs for farmers are based on the crop year, so funding would carry on past September, but producers face uncertainty if legislators can’t get their act together.
Some observers suggest the best that can be hoped for is another ex-tension of the 2008 law, but that addresses neither budget cutting nor gaps in existing programs, such as the need for a disaster program for livestock.
The collapse of the farm bill does not bode well for other bills, such as immigration legislation.
Deadlock and inaction will be the norm until the various factions learn to compromise.
If they don’t, American voters will have to force changes through the ballot box by rejecting ideologues and voting for pragmatists who will compromise to get the job done.
