Sleepless in Midland

People are paying close attention to the farm bill

For a long time many observers didn't see much distinction between Republicans and Democrats. But this election year appears to be different as President Obama has made it abundantly clear that he wants a country with high taxes, large amounts of debt, and huge numbers of voters dependent on government handouts. You know, like Greece.

Republicans, on the other hand, claim to want low taxes, low debt, and minimal government dependency. But then where does that leave the long time Republican constituents who are dependent on government handouts? The farm bill is a good example where Republicans profess to want fiscal conservatism but who fight hard to keep those handouts coming.

Here are a couple of sentences from USNews.com that sum it up nicely:

Then there are rural Republican members of Congress who routinely denounce special interest politics and subsidies, but develop a serious case of amnesia when the farm bill is under consideration. Somehow these functioning adults, who clearly recognize loan guarantees to Solyndra were bad, believe heavily subsidized crop insurance is a public good.

This would be a good point to bring up Texas District 11 Congressman Mike Conaway for telling us, “For our kids and our grandkids, we need to get Washington’s spending under control, eliminate huge annual deficits, and begin to chip away at our mounting national debt." But then he does a cheerleader's yell for the massive House farm bill with the extraordinary claim that it "contributes to this goal by cutting more than $35 billion." Cut from what? Presumably from the Senate version which itself is packed with pork. See Senator Tom Coburn's concern about the $2.1 billion of taxpayer money spent on advertising in foreign countries in the past 13 years to market agricultural products overseas.

The title of this post was that people are paying attention to the farm bill. So let's see what some of them are saying.

WashingtonExaminer.com in Doggy glitter gets a share of farm bill billions about the Senate version:

The bill, last renewed in 2008, now costs $969 billion over 10 years, and senators hope to shave off $23 billion in savings.

(No wonder the house is so proud of their $35 billion in "savings.")

DailyCaller.com in Democratic congresswoman: Unemployment worse than 8.2 percent:

The pending House version of the 2012 farm bill reauthorization proposes $16 billion in cuts to the program. The Senate version, passed last month, rejected attempts at vast reform, but cut $4 billion from the program over the next decade — pittance compared to $770 billion the government is the expected to spend on food stamps in that time frame.

AEI-ideas.com New farm bill likely to be a budget and trade disaster:

All in all, the House [Price Loss Coverage] program has a real potential to be both a budget and trade relations disaster. Worse, it will do so at an estimated taxpayer cost of about $16 billion a year if prices return to recent historical average levels. The new House farm subsidy proposals are likely to be more than twice as costly for taxpayers as the recently passed Senate Bill shallow loss program, which itself is a potential budget buster that would cost an estimated $6 to $7 billion a year under the same circumstance (Smith, Babcock, and Goodwin). If Congress is in fact serious about deficit reduction, then both Congress and the nation are being poorly served by this bipartisan move on the part of the current House Agricultural Committee leadership.

Whenever we hear how much a spending bill will "save," let's remember that in the vernacular of government we can also "save" $245.05 by purchasing $260 Obama commemorative coins for only $14.95. Smart shoppers will save 100%.

A farm bill that coddles its clients

When did farmers first learn that water conservation and crop rotation were paramount in keeping their land productive? It probably became common knowledge not long after the concept of private property and individually owned farms took hold, which is to say, a long, long time ago.

Whenever a farm bill starts bouncing around Congress supporters of government subsidies come out of the woodwork in favor of more sharing of the taxpayers' wealth with agribusiness. And here's one that was in the print edition of the morning paper. It wasn't in the online edition, however, the same William McKenzie editorial can be found at Kansas.com and Vindy.com.

His basic argument is that farmers need to plant crops that don't waste scarce water and don't deplete the soil nutrients. Nothing wrong with that, however his big government solution is to bribe them. In other words, he wants a farm bill that will pay them for doing what common sense told generations of farmers before them to do. It's very condescending, and it suggests that he thinks farmers aren't smart enough to do it on their own.

But what we have is a system of subsidies that has made farmers dependent on the government. Maybe this current trend of voters wanting to wean government clients off of taxpayer bailouts will catch hold and result in a farm bill that will let agribusiness be less dependent on government. There's a lot of lobby money at stake, though, so it won't be easy.

John McCain's top ten examples of Farm Bill pork

John McCain Twitters a top ten list of wasteful spending in the proposed farm bill. Jamie Dupree lists them all in one spot:

"#1 - Creates new USDA office to inspect catfish. FDA already inspects catfish, so this one’s a real bottom-feeder.
#2 - $200 mil Market Access Program promoting brands overseas. Example: Holding "liquor mixology demonstrations" in Russia.
#3 - $25 million to study health benefits of peas, lentils and garbanzo beans. Pretty sure they’re healthy.
#4 - Subsidies for mohair (AKA goat wool), which have cost taxpayers $20 million+ since 1954
#5 - New subsidy for popcorn producers. Yes, popcorn subsidies - after popcorn prices rose 40% in recent yrs.
#6 - $10 million to establish new USDA program to eradicate feral pigs. Talk about pork!
#7 - $15 million to establish a new grant program to “improve” the U.S. sheep industry. A ba-a-a-a-a-a-d idea.
#8 - $700 million for “Ag and Food Research Initiative” funding grants to research pine trees in FL & study moth pheromones
#9 - $40 million in grants from USDA to states to encourage private land owners to use land for bird watching or hunting
#10 - $200 million for “Value Added Grant Program” often used to give grants to wine producers (& cheese makers too) "

Each time a new farm bill comes alone agribusiness farms it for profit. The farm bill is a relic from FDR's new deal, and whether that was a good thing or a bad thing at the time, government handouts became a permanent fixture. It has evolved into an example of crony capitalism.

The Farm Bill gives Republicans an opportunity to show real fiscal conservatism

While Republicans are celebrating Scott Walker's victory in Wisconsin, it might pay to remember that on a national level when Republicans have the power they are barely better than Democrats.

At this point in time the voting public is intensely focused on government spending, deficits, and debt. That's a good thing. There have always been politicians and voters concerned about it, but we have Barack Obama to thank for giving the issue such a high profile that it has become the dominating electoral issue in much of the country.

But if/when Republicans take charge of the White House and both houses of Congress, will they be able to do the hard thing and cut spending? Or will they gang up to defend their own spending turfs? The farm bill comes to mind.

The farm bill is a new-deal era subsidy program that doles out big bucks to a powerful clientele. That clientele sucked up over $15 billion in 2010.

According to Veronique de Rugy, "The agribusiness sector as a whole spent $124 million for lobbying in 2011." It will take some genuine conservative Senators and Representatives to just say no to the big farm lobbies and turn down that money.

It's a golden opportunity for Republicans to demonstrate true fiscal conservatism. In the words of Ms. de Rugy, end this cronyism already.

The sugar industry as government client

U.S. sugar policies have doubled the price of sugar to Americans over world sugar prices, according to Mark J. Perry. He continues, "By preventing American households and sugar-using companies from buying imported sugar at the world price, America's trade policies imposed an unnecessary $4 billion burden on the American consumer according to my January study."

There's a small group of Representatives who would like to see reform. And they sent a letter signed by 22 house members to the Speaker, Majority Leader and Minority Leader asking for a robust debate about sugar policy during consideration of the 2012 farm bill.

Unfortunately, Texas District 11 Representative Mike Conaway's name isn't among those signing. However, Mr. Conaway's name does appear on another list: Recipients of donations from American Crystal Sugar.

Mr. Conaway, according to MyWestTexas.com, conducted an unannounced meeting in Midland recently. Excerpt:

"The federal government does not grow the economy," he said, adding that the government should cut back on regulations to improve confidence in the private sector.

Technically, propping up an industry with import tariffs might be distinguishable from regulations. But wouldn't it be refreshing if those Representatives who took sugar money gave it back and voted to get the government out of the private sector? The sugar industry should be allowed to sink or swim it on its own.

Principled conservatives vs old line Republicans like Mike Conaway on the farm bill

The defeat of Republican Senator Dick Lugar in the Indiana Primary yesterday is a very encouraging sign to those of us who "want to purge the Republican Party," to borrow a phrase from Mr. Lugar himself.

To use another cliche, the old school Republican office holders should be put out to pasture. For too long they've talked the conservative talk to their voting constituents at home, but back at the office it was business as usual as they voted for more spending to placate the lobbyists and special interest groups.

If there's one positive thing the Obama administration has done, it has driven home the fear of what a far left government can do to a country. We should have learned that lesson already from Europe, and the prospect of ending up like a Grecian style basket case has frightened a lot of voters. But we see many of the old guard Republicans as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Should that include West Texas' own District 11 Congressman Mike Conaway?

Born again conservative Congressmen want us to accept their new commitment to fiscal responsibility. We would like to believe them, but the money they pull in from K-street is enough to convince us to be cautious. Mr. Conaway raises about a million dollars each election cycle. He's 3/4 the way there so far this year, and a peek at the locations of his fund raisers suggest that his donors don't reside in his district but in and around Washington, DC.

The one area when Rep. Conaway shines is in his commitment to farm subsidies. We all remember when the Bush administration tried to reform farm subsidy programs, but Rep. Conaway fought reform tooth and nail. Bush vetoed the farm bill in 2008, and Rep. Conaway was one of the cheerleaders for a veto override. Conaway's side won that skirmish.

A few years ago there was an attempt to call attention to wasteful farm subsidies such as this satirical video highlighting the hilarity of the millions of dollars in farm subsidies going to farmers living in New York City, San Francisco and other big cities. (See a more extensive list of the big cities and the dollar amounts at ewg.org.) Unfortunately for us, the USDA pulled the plug USDA pulled the plug in 2010 on the database that let citizens single out those big recipients.

While we are at it, be sure to watch John Stossel ripping farm subsidies as a way politicians buy votes and reminding us that the recipients aren't the small family farmers used to justify the subsidies but big agri-business. The farm bill is set to expire in 2012.  It's a good bet that a vote won't take place until after the November election.

There are two alternatives in the Republican Primary for the District 11 seat, Chris Younts and Wade Brown. But if you like the idea that $1.88 billion in taxpayer money was doled out to residents in District 11 from 1995-2010, then reelect Mike Conaway.

Farm Bill 2012 -- a budget challenge for Mike Conaway

Yesterday's morning paper contained a front pager about Texas District 11 Representative Mike Conaway and the current budget debate. Quote:

"We know enough about the problems we face that putting it off will not gain us any additional insight into the problem," Conaway said. "We know the problem, it's not rocket science, it's spending."

Mr. Conaway is so popular in District 11 that voters gave him 80% of their votes in the 2010 election. Maybe the lure of that remaining 20% is what compels him to hold all of those fund raisers 1,600 miles away from the district in which his constituents reside -- did you get your invitation to the CONAPAC Golf Outing in Owings Mills, MD, this weekend? A cynic might suggest it could be the lure of money some are willing to pay for access to people in power, but let's stick with what we know.

Mr. Conaway, in spite of winning a 2009 Taxpayer's Friend Award, has been consistent in his support of government subsidies paid to farmers. During the Bush administration he fought tooth and nail against any efforts at reform, especially against a push to cut subsidies to people with ultra high incomes. Mr. Conaway, ever the egalitarian, held fast to the principle that a person can't be too rich to be on the government dole.

So when he says he "reluctantly supports" agriculture appropriations legislation H.R. 2112, a bill which WashingtonWatch.com says will cost the average family $1,206.36, one must wonder why he is reluctant. He isn't getting any pressure from constituents and probably isn't getting much from other Republicans in the House.

But that could change as the Farm Bill comes up for renewal in 2012 when the subsidy supporters go to battle with the budget reformers.

Let's conclude with this observation from Doug Bandow in It’s Time To Kick Farmers Off The Federal Dole :

Government subsidies obviously aren’t necessary for food production: people have fed themselves and traded their surpluses for thousands of years. The system doesn’t help consumers. Reducing supplies and imposing price floors obviously are bad deals for the hungry. Paying off farmers might lower some prices, but steals back through taxes any benefits received by consumers. Agricultural subsidies are designed by farmers for farmers.

To quote our very own Congressman "We know the problem, it's not rocket science, it's spending."

Mike Conaway as fiscal conservative

It was just a few short years ago that Texas District 11 Congressman Mike Conaway was blasting away at President Bush's efforts to reform farm subsidies, especially Mr. Bush's insane idea that a person can be so rich that maybe he/she shouldn't be collecting government welfare in the form of farm subsidies. And Mr. Conaway was cheering lawmakers on as they overrode President Bush's veto of the farm bill.

Ah, those were the good old days when reformers were few and money was free. And No one cared how much money the government spent or where it went.

Now far more people are watching Washington and worrying about what the mountain of government debt will mean for our futures. And some are actually trying to do something about it.

Today Mr. Conaway is campaigning on the editorial pages of the Midland Reporter-Telegram:

This past Tuesday, House Republicans released their own blue print for America, a budget we’ve titled “The Path to Prosperity.” The future the 2012 Republican budget calls for is radically different than the president’s. Our budget strengthens our nation’s finances, shrinks our national debt and preserves the promises of Medicare and Medicaid for generations to come. While I do not agree with every line of the budget, I believe it addresses the difficult financial position of our nation in a comprehensive and rational way. This budget puts our government on a path to long-term sustainability. [emphasis added]

We've heard Mr. Conaway talk the talk before, and maybe this time he means it. But he did hedge a little -- see the part in bold. Perhaps it's because other Republicans are eye balling the farm bill pork. See Online.WSJ.com:

Republican House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's blueprint for the fiscal 2012 budget puts agriculture subsidies in the cross hairs, seeking to cut $30 billion over a decade—starting when the next farm bill is passed in 2012—out of a total of some $150 billion in total expected spending on farm subsidies.

Twenty percent is a good start. One hundred percent is better.

Before ObamaCare got signed into law Republican lawmakers were out in the field talking it down. Representative Conaway met with some healthcare workers in Midland, and he told them a story about an experience of his when he addressed an audience in a small community in his district. Someone in that community audience told about another resident of that community who was having health problems and asked why wasn't there something the government could do. According to Mr. Conaway, he answered that the people in that community should step forward to help that individual instead of looking to the government.

Whether or not the members of that community were on the farm bill dole isn't known, but if he could give his farm bill clients that same answer, we would all be better for it.

Be strong, Representative Conaway, we complain, but we are rooting for you.

Updated 4/12/11: Here's another approach. Help reduce the budget deficit by cutting subsidies to billionaires. Thomas Sowell:

My plan would start by cutting off all government transfer payments to billionaires. Many, if not most, people are probably unaware that the government is handing out the taxpayers' money to billionaires. But agricultural subsidies go to a number of billionaires. Very little goes to the ordinary farmer. ...

The usual political counter-attacks against spending cuts will not work against this new kind of spending cut approach. How many heart-rending stories can the media run about billionaires who have lost their handouts from the taxpayers?

Let's do it.

Republicans and farm subsidies -- a fiscal blind spot

Many fiscal conservatives are watching Republican office holders very closely these days to try to gauge whether Republicans are serious about fiscal discipline or merely hungover from the last spending binge.

They preach fiscal conservatism, but farm subsidies seem to reside in their blind spot. Fortunately, sources like Dailycaller.com are there to call them out. For example, this article is ostensibly about Haley Barbour, but the point about farm subsidies is general. See:

The reasons Republicans have trouble prying themselves away from government welfare programs for farming are varied. For starters, farming interests have a major footprint in the world of Washington lobbying. The American Farm Bureau has spent more than $60 million on lobbyists since 2000, and the farming interest groups donate mightily to both parties in each election cycle. Many of the most conservative members of the Republican House and Senate represent agriculture states, and bring in millions of federal dollars for their state in subsidies. (Emphasis added.)

The state of Iowa, which plays a starring role in the presidential primary election each cycle because of its early primary schedule and relies heavily on federal subsidies, also makes it difficult for candidates like Barbour to come out against them.

Got sacred cows? Just rope 'em, throw and brand 'em. Rawhide.