House passes farm bill, eliminating Food Stamps

[DevotedDemocrat]

The House on Thursday narrowly passed a massive farm bill, after Republicans took the risky step of carving out the food stamp program -- a move Democrats effectively boycotted.
The bill passed on a 216-208 vote. Zero Democrats voted for it.
House Democrats spent most of the afternoon lambasting their Republican colleagues for dropping the food stamp component, making clear that House Speaker John Boehner would need to rely on Republicans only to pass the bill. After some marathon nose-counting, GOP leaders were able to minimize the number of Republican defectors -- just 12 Republicans voted against it on Thursday.
The farm bill historically has been a vehicle for both billions in farm subsidies and billions in food stamps. Twinning the two massive programs has in the past helped win support from rural-state lawmakers and those representing big cities. But after the bill failed in the House last month amid opposition from rank-and-file Republicans, House leaders removed the food stamp portion in a bid to attract conservative support.
The fate of the measure is unclear, though, as the matter now kicks back to the Senate or to a so-called conference committee to resolve differences between the two chambers' bills. The Democratic-led Senate overwhelmingly passed a farm bill with smaller cuts to food stamps, but would be reluctant to go along with a bill that carves out food stamps.
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said splitting the bill would be a "major mistake" -- though she has also indicated a willingness to try building off anything the House passes.
The White House has vowed to veto. A statement released overnight said that the food stamp program "is a cornerstone of our nation's food assistance safety net, and should not be left behind as the rest of the Farm Bill advances."
Though Boehner was able to hold together his own caucus, Democrats reacted furiously at the move to drop food stamps.
"It's all about denying the working poor the right to food," Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., claimed, accusing Republicans of attacking "poor people."
One by one, members of the Congressional Black Caucus lined up to assail the proposal. "There are poor children in poor areas that I represent," Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., said.
Republicans, while concerned about the ballooning cost and enrollment in the $80 billion-a-year food stamp program, are not by any means eliminating food stamps by taking it out of the farm bill. They would instead deal with it as a separate bill.
Boehner, aside from battling Democrats, was also contending with influential conservative groups leaning on the House to reject the bill, claiming the farm subsidies are still too expensive.
"Although the bill does not contain the $750 billion in food stamp spending like (the previous bill) it does nothing to make 'meaningful reforms' to America's farm policy," the conservative Heritage Foundation, which helped kill the bill the last time, said in a statement.
House Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., said as recently as last week that he opposed splitting the bill. But he has now reluctantly agreed to the strategy, saying he would support it if his Republican leaders could deliver the votes. Late Wednesday, he gave a reserved endorsement of the plan to the GOP-controlled Rules Committee, which determines the procedures for floor debate.
"Maybe the old dynamic of how we have done things since 1965 isn't valid anymore," he said. "Maybe it is time to try something different."
The bill would also repeal laws from the 1930s and 1940s, essentially eliminating all old farm policy, which some conservatives like.
Farm-state lawmakers have kept those laws on the books so there would be incentive to pass new farm bills and avoid expiration, but the threat of outdated policies kicking in has been a headache for farmers who worry they can't depend on Congress to create new laws or extend more recent versions of the law.
Repealing those decades-old laws could mean that Congress would have little incentive to create new farm bills, however, and could make many farm programs permanent.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/11/house-republicans-drop-food-stamps-from-massive-farm-bill/#ixzz2YqXAFA2c

[Nhoj]

Out side of republicans being dicks, I fail to see a problem with food stamps being their own bill. Putting the two together is just a gimmick to unite rural congressmen and urban ones on these bills.

[Lief 🗽]

Welfare for big agriculture, but no welfare for starving poors. The GOP continues to be disgusting.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Thing is, now that both houses have passed a farm bill, it can go to conference where the food stamps will be restored, the only question being at what level?  The Senate bill already made some hefty cuts to the program.

[krazen1211]

The original post is lying. The bill doesn't eliminate food stamps.

[DevotedDemocrat]

The original post is lying. The bill doesn't eliminate food stamps.

It guts and takes the teeth out of the program.

[krazen1211]

The original post is lying. The bill doesn't eliminate food stamps.

It guts and takes the teeth out of the program.

No, it doesn't do that either. Someone is whining to prevent a 3% reduction to an extremely expensive program.

[krazen1211]

For the record, this is a prime program to cut to reduce government spending in the latest poll.

[DevotedDemocrat]

For the record, this is a prime program to cut to reduce government spending in the latest poll.

How about a reduction in top tier tax cuts rather than cuts in spending?
Poor people need food stamps more than rich need tax breaks.

[pbrower2a]

The original post is lying. The bill doesn't eliminate food stamps.

Taking out the funds is effective elimination, at least for the time.

[King]

The food stamp program is actually not that expensive compared to the rest of the government and it would be even cheaper if the farm subsidies the House is working to protect actually subsidized real food and not just covering the losses of overstock grain production--requiring less benefits given to directly to people overall.

And it would not only help the poor, like EBT, but also help middle class and even the rich by making food universally cheaper.

[krazen1211]

The original post is lying. The bill doesn't eliminate food stamps.

Taking out the funds is effective elimination, at least for the time.

They didn't take out any funds.

[DevotedDemocrat]

The original post is lying. The bill doesn't eliminate food stamps.

Taking out the funds is effective elimination, at least for the time.

They didn't take out any funds.

In this era, I trust Republicans as much as I would trust my local neighborhood bank robber. Steal from the poor and give to the rich is the Tea Party Republican way.

[ag]

This is, actually, a great opportunity. Without food stamps, agricultural subsidies do not have the constituency, so they can be cut. Dems should make it very clear, that that bill is dead and the new agricultural subsidy bill would have to be negotiated from scratch, taking as a primary objective a major reduction of farm spending: I would start the negotiation with an offer of maintaining it at, say, 10% of the current level, with severe means testing, to make sure none of it goes to major producers.

Dems can survive without Iowa.

[tpfkaw]

Dems can survive without Iowa.

It would also put a strain on their positions in Wisconsin, and to a lesser extent Minnesota and Illinois.

[ag]

So, here is the simple political economy of it. Here are the 13 states that together receive over 2/3 of the total amount of US tax subsidies (some total from 1995 to 2012):
1   Texas      9.3%   
2   Iowa              8.5%   
3   Illinois      7.1%   
4   Minnesota      5.9%   
5   Nebraska      5.6%   
6   Kansas           5.6%   
7   North Dakota   5.1%   
8   South Dakota   3.8%   
9   Arkansas           3.7%   
10   California      3.5%   
11   Indiana      3.5%   
12   Missouri      3.5%   
13   Mississippi         2.8%

Of the 13, 8 have voted Republican in every one of the last 4 presidential elections, one voted Republican 3 times (Indiana), Iowa voted Dem 3 times and only 3 states (MN, CA and IL) voted Dem all 4 times. But, the beauty of it, in CA and IL the Dem majority is large and completely independent of the farm vote. So, Dems are only, really, risking IA and MN if they make a point of decimating the subsidies. They should simply make it clear, that any bill coming out of the conference will be filibustered - I am pretty sure, that they should be able to find 41 democrats who would be willing to do the honors.

[ag]

Dems can survive without Iowa.

It would also put a strain on their positions in Wisconsin, and to a lesser extent Minnesota and Illinois.

MN and WI - yeah, I can see that. IL? Doubt. Given the current state of the suburbs, the city and metro Chicago should be more than enough.

[krazen1211]

The original post is lying. The bill doesn't eliminate food stamps.

Taking out the funds is effective elimination, at least for the time.

They didn't take out any funds.

In this era, I trust Republicans as much as I would trust my local neighborhood bank robber. Steal from the poor and give to the rich is the Tea Party Republican way.

You don't need to trust them to be a remotely honest man.

[tpfkaw]

Dems can survive without Iowa.

It would also put a strain on their positions in Wisconsin, and to a lesser extent Minnesota and Illinois.

MN and WI - yeah, I can see that. IL? Doubt. Given the current state of the suburbs, the city and metro Chicago should be more than enough.

Not saying it would make them even remotely competitive on the Presidential level, but it would probably shore up Kirk's position and make holding the governor's seat that much more difficult, as well as potentially causing the Democratic gerrymander to backfire.

[Ogre Mage]

Oh no, let's not feed the poor children (47% of food stamp recipients are under 18).  Yet another reason why the GOP brand is so toxic.

[DevotedDemocrat]

Oh no, let's not feed the poor children (47% of food stamp recipients are under 18).  Yet another reason why the GOP brand is so toxic.

Commieist!

[pbrower2a]

The food stamp program is actually not that expensive compared to the rest of the government and it would be even cheaper if the farm subsidies the House is working to protect actually subsidized real food and not just covering the losses of overstock grain production--requiring less benefits given to directly to people overall.

And it would not only help the poor, like EBT, but also help middle class and even the rich by making food universally cheaper.

I don't disagree with you on the economics. We would be better off with no agricultural subsidies but we still need aid to the poor.

Economic efficiency may not be the relevant issue.

The cost of the food stamp program (and other safety nets) is that it keeps people in economic distress from accepting the very worst deal from their supposed betters -- people who would exploit them as badly as any feudal lord or plantation owner. "Work at my terms or die" is even worse than the robber's "Your money or your life!" At the least  after a robbery one can earn the money back. After one becomes a serf as our elites want us to become one has lost everything precious -- including personal freedom.

Hunger is not freedom.  

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Farm-state lawmakers have kept those laws on the books so there would be incentive to pass new farm bills and avoid expiration, but the threat of outdated policies kicking in has been a headache for farmers who worry they can't depend on Congress to create new laws or extend more recent versions of the law.
Repealing those decades-old laws could mean that Congress would have little incentive to create new farm bills, however, and could make many farm programs permanent.

OMG, What an outrage! How dare they decline to use a corrupt rider combination and bring stability by moving towards permenence in agra programs! It's just plan barbaric, I tell you! BARBARIC!!!

[pbrower2a]

Business subsidies are the most corrupt and inefficient way of promoting a strong economy.

[barfbag]

If we get rid of the future costs of Obamacare, we'd be able to afford more food stamps and feed more people.