While 2012′s double whammy of heat and drought is making the headlines, Congress’ response to the severe damage that is being sustained by the industry of basic food production has been considerably less noticeable.
In the face of the worst drought in more than a generation, and with millions of fish being killed as waterways in the heartland run dry, Congress has done nothing to bring relief to an industry that literally feeds our population. Rather than take any action, Congress opted instead to desert their offices for five weeks of paid vacation.
To be fair, it’s not as though Washington hasn’t proposed anything.
The Senate had included funding for disaster relief inside a five-year farm bill, but in the House, partisan bickering doomed the measure. The House then passed its own version, but the Senate apparently felt that tending to the business of the people simply was not worth sacrificing any vacation time.
To me, it is reprehensible that Congress is turning its back on this industry and, by extension, on the people of the U.S. Congress is allowing food producers to suffer through a slow-motion tragedy while simultaneously hitting the rest of us with a back-door tax in the form of even higher prices for food. If this is Congress’ idea of rebuilding our economy, one wonders how congressional complacency might look.
These days, the only thing “bipartisan” about Congress is a backward set of priorities, which perhaps can be explained by the adage “Follow the Money.”
In 2008, when Congress stopped at nothing to pass a $700 Billion bailout package for Wall Street, the financial industry that year lobbied Washington to the tune of over $454,000,000 (or $848,598 for each of the 535 members of Congress); by contrast, the 2008 lobbying expenditures of basic food producers totaled just $21,000,000 ($39,252 per member). Through the first half of 2012, the financial lobby has given over $239,000,000 to Congress, while food producers have spent around $10,000,000. When one considers that the drought package was tabbed at $383,000,000, or just 0.00057 of the amount that Washington so willingly foisted upon Wall Street four years ago, the conclusion must be drawn that if the dollars aren’t coming in, Congress isn’t putting out.
The irony here is that through multiple forms of mandatory taxation, the people of this country send $2.5 Trillion each year into the federal coffers (or $4,672,897,196 per member of Congress). The message this conveys is that if the expenditures aren’t voluntary in nature and/or do not benefit individual members of Congress in some direct and personal way, the current attitude of our government is a collective “So What?”
“while simultaneously hitting the rest of us with a back-door tax in the form of even higher prices for food.”
So if some natural event causes a drop in supply of a good and the good’s price increases as a result, you consider that increase a backdoor tax if Congress doesn’t take tax money and funnel it to businesses in that industry?
Won’t you please help save Archer Daniels Midland? For just pennies a day you can help a shareholder desperately in need… of pennies.
What’s that, can’t pay the mortgage, lost you job? Moocher!
btw, what David doesn’t tell you is that the hold up on this bill was that many Democrats (and some Republicans) thought there was something inherrently wrong with cutting food stamps to bail out Montsanto. You know, offsetting the cost of that “tax” on children David is so worried about.
“Food Stamps at Heart of ‘Unfinished’ Fight Over Farm Bill”
@jgardner and @ PinkHatLib:
Since you may or may not have read the comment I wrote last week to PinkHatLib, in which I explained that despite the fact that I am a candidate for office, I will not hesitate to disagree with you because pandering for votes is not my style. If you are going to vote for me (or not), my preference is that you make your decision based upon what you know about me, and not upon what you don’t. (For the other brand of candidate, you already have a full menu of choices.)
Beginning with jgardner:
I’m guessing you find it perfectly reasonable that a man-made catastrophe that is caused by abject greed and corruption should be met by congress’ working feverishly to shovel gobs of taxpayer money into a bailout; that is the only explanation I can find for why you would ignore entirely that part of the article. Otherwise, you might have picked up on what I thought was the none-too-subtle point that I tried to make in this piece — that the choice by congress to reward the behavior of wall street would be, if not viewed through the lens of lobbying dollars, completely incongruous when measured against the intransigence exhibited by congress in failing to lend relief to an industry that, aside from its importance to our economy, needed a far far smaller amount of money.
And, yes, when food prices, which already have become quite high, are estimated to rise by another 3% to 5% for the next twelve months, and the new rise in prices is reasonably traceable to this issue and to congress’ inaction, I do believe that qualifies as the imposition of a “back-door tax.”
@ PinkHatLib:
(a) While companies like archer daniels midland and monsanto are, without question, large forces in industry, you find no mention of them in this article not because I am trying to hide anything, and not because I am unaware of them, but because this relief package wasn’t designed to help companies like them. The assistance that was rejected by congress in this case was supposed to be directed at helping the suppliers who actually depend upon what they do in order to make a living.
(b) Just like I mentioned to jgardner, you also need to see the larger point of the article — that the extant deep partisanship that exists in washington is preventing the legislature from actually doing what it was elected to do. It speaks volumes that because of its bickering over what should be a wholly separate matter (food stamps), congress could not see its way clear to completing a measure that would have served a greater good. In that sense, it is entirely irrelevant what was the parties’ specific disagreement — it could have been whether the Pope is Catholic, or whether fish actually do swim, or what state actually produces the cheese of which the moon is made.
The point is that as currently operated, the party-system is not allowing for congress to function well enough to work on behalf of the people who elected it. And in my view (and, as I believe, the numbers support), the wildly inconsistent behavior of congress would indicate that the dysfunction of which I speak is largely attributable to the corrupting influence of lobbying dollars.
David
David,
“man-made catastrophe”
I assume you’re referring to the housing crash. If so, I don’t find that event and a drought completely analogous. I would have preferred no bailouts for the banks, however when the gov’t had a hand in creating the crash and the Fed has taken over the role of commercial bank clearinghouse which would have normally acted as lender of last resort, it gets a little more complicated.
“none-too-subtle point that I tried to make”
I got that, however the statement I quoted in my response didn’t make sense to me. You seem to be arguing that because Congress bailed out the banks that they should also bailout the big farmers (they’re always so much better at rent-seeking than the small farmers), and that Congress’ inaction in that arena is leading to higher prices and is therefore a hidden tax. Ignoring for a moment that Congress sending tax money in the form of disaster relief is also a tax, I don’t know that there’s any reason to believe that if you send that welfare to the big farmers that prices would adjust downward — the supply of the goods are still affected. Just ask yourself if the price of gasoline would drop if we gave oil companies a bailout.
“are estimated to rise by another 3% to 5% for the next twelve months, and the new rise in prices is reasonably traceable to this issue and to congress’ inaction”
It could also be “reasonably traced” to the Fed’s QE-Unlimited, which will lead to higher commodity and food prices over that same time period.
“..because of its bickering over what should be a wholly separate matter”
Yes of course, what does hunger have to do with the financial health of agribusiness? Clearly I’m confused about that. Never mind that it’s the connection you yourself attempted to make in justifying the reauthoriztion of these corporate welfare programs…
“Congress is turning its back on this industry and, by extension, on the people of the U.S. Congress is allowing food producers to suffer through a slow-motion tragedy while simultaneously hitting the rest of us with a back-door tax in the form of even higher prices for food.”
And you’ll have to forgive me for not getting all teary about the struggles Cargill faces in funding its lobbying efforts. btw, here’s what I’m talking about from an actual New England farmer…
***
These subsidy programs were created during the Great Depression to provide a financial safety net for small rural farmers. Many of these programs, however, have lost their way, and the farm bill disproportionately subsidizes large agribusinesses.
Seventy-five percent of the $277 billion spent on agricultural subsidies since 1995 went to just 3.8 percent of the country’s largest farms — not small family farms. In Maine, 82 percent of farmers don’t see a dime.
Big Ag is using this summer’s drought as an excuse to push through a farm bill that would lock in these unnecessary subsidies. These giveaways, however, have nothing to do with helping farmers hit by drought and natural disasters. In fact, struggling farmers already are receiving help through existing disaster programs.
Local farms often grow a variety of produce and are involved in small-scale sustainable food production, teaching the public about where their food comes from and developing demand for nourishing food. These subsidies put our local farms at a competitive disadvantage.
***
@ PinkHatLib,
My reading of this year’s aid package does not indicate that it is part and parcel of the larger subsidies to which you allude — that’s why it was so relatively small in comparison to the money that congress spends on so many other things.
The fact that smaller farmers who have figured out how to handle the weather are not receiving any aid is, as far as I can tell, a correct non-application of the money. Aid is not supposed to go for those who do not need it. And if smaller farmers who need it are receiving help, then one would think that either they would not receive more help than they should need, or that what they are getting is not enough to cover their losses (and hence they would need more).
By the way, in my mind, funding for the food stamp program does not have much to do with a drought relief package; that is like saying that cutting after-school sports programs for kids is ok because professional sports figures already make plenty of money.
In any event, unless you are trying to say that, somehow, congress suddenly has found its way insofar as acting appropriately regardless of which industry is feathering its nest, I don’t believe that you have made the case that congress’ inaction on this matter has nothing to do with its biases with respect to from whence the lobbying dollars are coming…. which was, after all, the entire point of the article.
I will be off-line for a while, so will not be able to respond immediately if you should happen to write anything else in this space.
David
“you find no mention of them in this article not because I am trying to hide anything, and not because I am unaware of them, but because this relief package wasn’t designed to help companies like them.”
Well now you’re either misinformed or making things up.
Everyone is Hopping Mad About the Farm Bill
Many small farmers in Maine oppose federal bill that offers subsidies for big agriculture
Perhaps you should site the specific bill you think is being held up and spefically which partisan bickering you think is inappropriately “dooming” the measure.
@ jgardner:
I’m glad to see that we agree that it was bad policy to hand $700 Billion of taxpayer money to facilitate the corruption on wall street. This, in fact, is part of the point I am trying to make here — that if not for the lobbying dollars that pour in from that sector, congress’ actions in 2008 might well have been more in line with what you and I both seem to feel should have been the governmental response — no bailout for a problem that was created by greed and corruption; the problem, though, is that it is the very culture of greed and corruption in congress itself that is the facilitating factor in why our tax dollars are so wasted in the first place.
I am not attempting to make the argument that the government should be in the business of bailing out everyone in sight — I am trying to point out the inherent flaw with congress that is shown by the fact that in the case of an industry that spends far less to wine and dine our legislators, the inaction of congress appears to be more to the liking of those who feel that government should not be handing out taxpayer dollars to benefit businesses. I can only imagine what would have been the size of the drought relief package (and how easily it would have passed both houses) if the sector of food producers had lobbied congress with anything close to the number of dollars that is spent by the financial sector.
I hope that that helps to make my point clearer.
@ PinkHatLib:
There actually are two bills of which I have been thinking during this conversation. The first is the senate bill (S. 3240) that was passed in the senate before the house rejected it, and the second was the house bill (H.R. 6233) that was passed by the house but not considered by the senate prior to the legislative vacation.
S. 3240 actually had extended the food stamp program, and had in fact made cuts to federal spending in the places that were suggested by Nasima Hossain in the article to which you provided a link. The problem occurred once the measure came before the house of representatives. In that chamber, where partisan rancor is worse than it is in the senate, the cry went up that somehow, continued spending for food stamps was the problem. Therefore, it was the house that gutted those provisions, and passed a bill that was far more friendly to big-business, and far more draconian vis-a-vis the ordinary citizens that I have no doubt we (you, jgardner, and I) would agree should be beneficiaries of, and not victims of, legislative policy.
Which brings me to something I will say for (I think) the third time in this conversation:
The point I am trying to make is not that congress should be wasting taxpayer dollars, or even that congress should help one industry simply because it helped a different one four years ago.
What I am trying to say is that congress’ inherently inconsistent actions, especially when those actions appear to make for bad policy, seem to track far too closely to the amounts of (and to the sources of) the inflows of lobbying dollars. It’s not whether we (as constituents) would agree with any particular expenditure, but rather the question should be whether we, as a country, are desirous of continuing to allow a deeply-entrenched partisan machine to auction off national policy to the highest bidders. Or do we want to begin walking down a path where the stranglehold on congress is finally broken because the electorate can find the collective cojones to elect candidates who are more interested in trying to work on behalf of the constituents than they are in participating in junkets offered by big-money interests.
As I have mentioned before, your choices for whom to vote are chock-full of people who will tell you anything you want to hear, and then will do do whatever the party bosses tell them to do. You don’t have many options when it comes to candidates who will listen to you and will try to respond with any degree of thought and analysis. Change takes effort, time, and a whole lotta frustrating experiences. But nothing gets done unless and until the electorate makes the decision to take charge of its government — a government, by the way, that by all rights, should be directed by the people…. and not by those highest bidders to which I alluded a moment ago.
I am serious when I say that I will not pander for votes. However, I also believe that if the electorate really wants to begin feeling better about whom they elect to serve their interests, then it is incumbent upon that same electorate to cast votes for people who actually want to do so.
David
“I hope that that helps to make my point clearer.”
Yes, that does make your point much clearer, however I think the GM/Chrysler bailout is a more analogous situation with the big farmer bailout than the banking bailout.
P.S. Don’t forget lobbying for continued ethanol subsidies when comparing lobbying efforts
“Therefore, it was the house that gutted those provisions, and passed a bill that was far more friendly to big-business, and far more draconian vis-a-vis the ordinary citizens…”
Well good, but I recall that’s also the bill you pilloried Rep. Clcilline for voting against!
***
To be sure, there are other examples I could have chosen. For example, the fact that Mr. Cicilline voted “No” with respect to a drought-relief package this year that would have aided the farmers who literally grow our food. By voting the way he did, he has helped to impose a “back-door tax” on the nation in the form of higher food prices for (the estimates are) at least the next twelve months.
***
Not hard to see how someone like me might view that as stealth support for corporate welfare, especially with the anti-”tax” rhetoric thrown in for good measure. As I said at that time, go sell that over at AR.
LOL…. duly noted. :-)
@ PinkHatLib,
Your unwillingness to understand the different points that are being made at separate times is unfortunate, because I am certain you are smarter than that.
In any event, I assured you that I do not pander for votes…. please vote for someone else — anyone else.
You deserve the other choices.
David
Hey, I was trying to understand, but you seem to be trying to come in on both sides of that farm bill. I made the mistake of thinking you actually believed in the bill vs. that you were simply using it politically to imply that the representative hates farmers or something.
And as I said, I’m a Cicilline supporter. You can stop trying to convince me to vote for someone else.
@ PinkHatLib:
No, I am not coming in on both sides of the issue. I have re-read several times the passages to whcih you refer, and understand why it would look that way. And perhaps that is my own fault for not being more in-depth in my explanation regarding my reasoning as to why I feel that it would not have been inconsistent for Mr. Cicilline to have voted differently.
In any event, it’s good to know you will vote, and that your vote will not go to the right-wing.
By the way — I have no idea what is the “AR” to which you have referred twice.
David
“I have no idea what is the “AR” to which you have referred twice.”
AR = anchor rising… that other RI blog
@ jgardner:
Thank you for that…. perhaps I can find some folks there to infuriate. ;-)
By the way — if anyone is interested, I am scheduled to be a guest on three shows next week:
September 27: Guest of Ian Donnis on Rhode Island Public Radio, broadcast live at 11:00 a.m.
September 27: Guest of John Carlevale on Access RI Public TV — the show is “State of the State” — do not know when it will air.
September 28: Guest on “10 News Conference” with Bill Rappleye and Jim Taricani — show will air on September 30 at 11:00 or 11:30 a.m. on WJAR.
David