NE1: Agricultural Subsidies Elimination Act (Law)

[Deus Naturae]

Well, all of the Agriculture Reinvestment Act is just information regarding a grant program for agricultural investments. I favor the elimination of that program, so there isn't really anything in the bill that I'd want to keep.

Could you elaborate on the situations in which you believe farm subsidies are warranted?

Farm subsidies can act to keep commodity prices from going through wild fluctuations, making prices more stable for consumers.

Cheaper prices from foreign suppliers could bankrupt farms in Atlasia.  Subsidies will act to level the playing field for Atlasian farmers.  If Atlasian farms went bankrupt, Atlasians would be at the mercy of foreign food suppliers.  Farm subsidies when judiciously used would protect the consumer.

In times of natural disaster, farm subsidies can act as a form of insurance for farmers.

Are we currently administering subsidies for any of those purposes? If not, I'd be fine with removing Section 1, Part 1 on the off-chance that a situation like you describe were to occur prior to the passage of the next budget.

[cinyc]

I'm not a fan of farm subsidies.  But I'm also not a fan of changing expectations in mid-stream.  If we have made a commitment to a farmer under this program that has not yet been funded, we should keep that commitment.

So I'd like to propose an amendment to part 1:

1. The Agriculture Reinvestment Act of 2013 ifis hereby repealed in its entirety with respect to those farmers who have not enrolled in the program as of the date this law is enacted.
2. All new agricultural subsidies currently being administered by the regional government of the Northeast shall be ended effective upon the next regional budget.

[Deus Naturae]

Friendly.

[Cincinnatus]

What does the requirement to "match" the funds requested mean? Sorry if you already answered that and I'm not understanding you.

It simply means that farmers will have to have the same amount of cash on hand that they are requesting.  This was written into the law to prevent farmers from overcharging the system.

So the bill subsidizes farmers who already have considerable start-up capital?

Again, I would reiterate that farmers who have a sound business plan and some capital on hand should apply for a private loan if they wish to expand their enterprise. Any farmer who meets the extensive eligibility requirements specified in the bill shouldn't have a problem growing their farm without taxpayer assistance.

Well, again, the program only benefits farmers who make under $1,000,000.  They need to have some capital in the first place just so the business can exist, so I don't think that requirement is unreasonable.

If farmers want to obtain capital from private sources, they will still be allowed to do so, but this program was established to pump money into the economy and there's no need to eliminate that program - at least without substituting it with another safety net for our farmers... which no one here has proposed.

The program isn't a safety net, though. The program gives money to people who are looking to expand their farms, not people who've lost their farms. Again, if a farmer wants to expand his/her business and  has a good business plan, he/she should have no problem doing it on his/her own. There's no need to use taxpayer money to subsidize something that farmers are perfectly capable of doing themselves.

In libertarianworld, maybe, any joe could ask for money and expand his farm.  For the vast majority of poor farmers in the real world, however, that is not the case.  I would be happy to change this program so that farmers who aren't as likely to get private assistance can maintain their businesses, but repeal is not the answer.

Not any joe, but a joe who has has a planned, well thought-out business plan (like the program requires) should be able to take out a loan. If said joe is unable to get a loan from a private source, the Northeast has a regional bank that also lends money.

Unfortunately the agricultural sector, and the farms that this bill actually seeks to cover don't often have a "well though-out business plan" other than to survive throughout the year.  In general of course, subsidies serve a function for consumers, of which should be our concern.  We're not exactly a booming agricultural society up here in the cold though.  That being said, I don't have any problem alleviating the regions responsibilities and allowing the regional bank to handle this matter.     

[Napoleon]

I'm supportive of the new text.

[sentinel]

Question.

2. A "farm" shall be defined as any land used to produce crops, livestock, specialty livestock, or grazing and includes woodland not under cultivation or used for pasture or grazing.

Why are we considering woodland not under cultivation/pasture/grazing...a farm? Because of the potential?

[cinyc]

Question.

2. A "farm" shall be defined as any land used to produce crops, livestock, specialty livestock, or grazing and includes woodland not under cultivation or used for pasture or grazing.

Why are we considering woodland not under cultivation/pasture/grazing...a farm? Because of the potential?

That's identical to language from the original bill that is being repealed for new grants.  It probably was intially included because nearby woodlands can be cleared to make more room for farming.  It also might allow loans for things like Christmas tree farms. 

If we want to convert the old program into a loan program, we have to have the same definition of farm so that everything is covered.

[sentinel]

Question.

2. A "farm" shall be defined as any land used to produce crops, livestock, specialty livestock, or grazing and includes woodland not under cultivation or used for pasture or grazing.

Why are we considering woodland not under cultivation/pasture/grazing...a farm? Because of the potential?

That's identical to language from the original bill that is being repealed for new grants.  It probably was intially included because nearby woodlands can be cleared to make more room for farming.  It also might allow loans for things like Christmas tree farms.  


If we want to convert the old program into a loan program, we have to have the same definition of farm so that everything is covered.

Thats fine, I saw that it was the same language. Was just wondering why. But that works.


EDIT: Wrote in the wrong place

[cinyc]

The debate period is over.  It is time to vote on the bill, as amended:

Agricultural Subsidies Elimination Act

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This vote will remain open for the earlier of 48 hours or when all Representatives have voted.

[Deus Naturae]

Aye

[Napoleon]

Aye

[cinyc]

Aye

[Lincoln Republican]

Aye

[Cincinnatus]

Aye

[sentinel]

I shall sign this when the Speaker lets me know that I can

[cinyc]

By a vote of 5-0, the bill passes and goes to the governor's desk for his signature or veto.

[cinyc]

Governor Sirnick has signed this bill into law.