Republicans Dodge Farm Subsidy Cuts

[Elmore Furth]

Source: Associated Press

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 15, 2011 at 7:30 AM ET


WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans have quietly maneuvered to prevent a House spending bill from chipping away at federal farm subsidies, instead forging ahead with much larger cuts to domestic and international food aid.

The GOP move will probably prevent up to $167 million in cuts in direct payments to farmers, including some of the nation's wealthiest. The maneuver, along with the Senate's refusal Tuesday to end a $5 billion annual tax subsidy for ethanol-gasoline blends, illustrates just how difficult it will be for Congress to come up with even a fraction of the trillions in budget savings over the next decade that Republicans have promised.

Meanwhile, the annual bill to pay for food and farm programs next year would cut food aid for low-income mothers and children by $685 million, about 10 percent below this year's budget.

The farm subsidy cuts won bipartisan approval in the House Appropriations Committee two weeks ago, but as debate on the House floor began Tuesday, Republicans turned to a procedural maneuver to drop that language.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/06/15/us/politics/AP-US-Congress-Farm-Subsidies.html?ref=news

[iwishiwas]

1. OMG!! cutting food for poor women and children to pay rich Farmers!! When

is enough ENOUGH?? Will the Dems and Obama speak out about this??-maybe a wimpy line or two at best!

[wordpix]

3. they will only speak out if WE do---otherwise, campaign donations rule

the DINOS are as bad about corporate richies' donations as the repugs are

[happyslug]

10. President Lyndon Johnson once said, NOTHING gets done in DC unless it is lobbied for

And in a nutshell that is the problem, the large corporate farmers are willing to lobby to make sure the support they get from the Government Continues, but very few people lobby for the poor. Lyndon Johnson (Often referred to as "LBJ")tried to fix this by setting up semi-government agencies that could do the lobbying, but the GOP has slowly cut them ever since Reagan (and to end any such lobbying, is one of the reason the GOP is so anti-unions, Unions tend also to lobby for the poor, as do most main stream churches, which is why the Right support FUNDAMENTALISM not the mainline Protestant or Catholic Churches).

I am getting off the subject, through the support for the Fundamentalist wing of Christianity AND the Anti-union push of the GOP can be explained by their desire to remove anyone who MAY lobby for the poor, but the problem is do to the attacks on ANYONE who MAY lobby for the poor. Given the attack on all three, Mainline Churches, the Unions, and the Government and semi-governmental agencies set up to help the poor, very few lobby for the poor today. LBJ's comment is as accurate today as when he said it in the 1960s, NOTHING GETS DONE IN WASHINGTON UNLESS IT IS LOBBIED FOR.

[wordpix]

2. cut food aid to poor children, demolish Planned Parenthood, cut taxes for the rich

Good plan, GOCP (Grand Old Corporate Party) :sarcasm:

[bluestateguy]

4. I no longer support farm subsidies

It's just welfare for conservative farmers who rail against "socialism" and yet don't see the irony of it all.

Let them walk the walk if they are going to talk the talk.

[stubtoe]

14. That is so true. They cultivate their image as self-sufficient,

misunderstood stewards of the land, the rock solid foundation of the country, and lot of other heroic bs, when, really, they're businessmen.

Of course the dynamics of agriculture economies are different, and yes, some support is necessary. I believe too many subsidies go to agribusiness and not "family" farms.

[dotymed]

20. I think we would all be surprised (somewhat)

at the number of rethugs in Congress who receive farm subsidies.

[bulloney]

19. I know what you're saying, bluestateguy.

I worked membership for a farm organization for several years. Without fail, you always ran into a farmer during membership drives who gives you his "get the government out of agriculture" song and dance and tells you how he believes in rugged individualism and he doesn't need no stinkin' government programs.

Then, the Environmental Working Group came out with its website where you can see who's received federal farm payments and how much over the past five years. And, almost without fail, the same farmers who gave me their "get the government out of agriculture" lecture were among the largest, if not the largest, recipients of farm program dollars in their counties.

[stubtoe]

26. Here is their website: http://farm.ewg.org/

I checked out my own state, Oregon. The overwhelming number of farms receiving subsidies are on the East side, the reddest of the red counties.

[NickB79]

29. You just described my dad's family to a T

7 farmers, all ranting against welfare queens and Obamacare at every Christmas and Thanksgiving, yet taking tens of thousands of dollars a year in subsidies so they can buy new trucks, build new houses, and send my cousins on honeymoons to Hawaii.

[alp227]

5. U.S. Senate votes to continue ethanol subsidy

Source: The Washington Independent

An amendment that aimed to eliminate a major government subsidy to produce ethanol was stopped in the U.S. Senate today, garnering praise from Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), among other senators who sought to halt the proposal.

Politico reported that Grassley was one of a dozen Republicans, many from the Midwest where ethanol production is prevalent, in opposition of the amendment.

The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla) was stopped with a vote of 40 to 65. Coburn sought to repeal a $.45-cent-per-gallon ethanol blending tax credit and a $.54-per-gallon import tariff.

Read more: http://washingtonindependent.com/111093/u-s-senate-votes-to-continue-ethanol-subsidy

[KeepItReal]

6. Senate shoots down proposal to end ethanol subsidies

Source: Autoblog

Earlier today, the United States Senate rejected an amendment that would have put an end to the $6 billion in tax breaks and subsidies for producers of corn-based ethanol.

Introduced by Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), the amendment was unable to martial the 60 votes needed to end debate in the Senate, failing in a 40-in-favor, 59-against procedural vote as members of both parties joined in opposition to the measure.

..

On Coburn's side were environmental advocates who have long questioned the ecological benefit of ethanol, claiming that it simply takes too much energy to produce the corn-based fuel.

In opposition stood the Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), a group headed by conservative Grover Norquist. The ATR lobbied against the amendment on grounds that the elimination of a tax break should only be considered if it's offset by tax cuts.

Read more: http://i.autoblog.com/2011/06/14/senate-shoots-down-proposal-to-end-ethanol-subsidies/

[svpadgham]

7. Grover Norquist...

Something heavy needs to fall on his head.

[Heretofor]

8. Corporatism...

Yet another example of corporatism - NOT a true free market.

Ethanol has too much going against it to be worthwhile. It uses up too much land that could be used for food production, damages engines, and costs as much (or more) to produce and transport as gasoline. Maybe it's okay for local use, but there's no good upside.

There MAY be a point to price stabilization, but we can do that after we remove it as a primary fuel source.

[robcon]

11. Stupid, wasteful subsidy continues.

Sad.

[Javaman]

9. Ah yes, citizens united rears it's ugly head yet again...

of course they don't want to get rid of farm subsidies. Some of the biggest repuke contributors are agra biz.

And, if I recall, many of the repukes who yell for less government in our lives, also gladly take farm subsidies for themselves.

ah yes, being the pocket of big money contributors pays very well.

Oh, and those poor folks who just got fucked out of food? This is the new reality until we change it. To quote Adam Savage of Myth Busters, "I reject your reality and replace it with my own".

[Kolesar]

15. It's because the corn belt states have small populations but huge numbers of Senators

The corn belt extends from Ohio to the Dakotas and Kansas. We are screwed.

[SpiralHawk]

12. "Smirk." - Republicon Socialism for the Rich

[harun]

16. It's communism, except you and I aren't allowed in the commune.

We don't have enough capital.

[Kingofalldems]

13. Kick again before someone tries to change the subject.

And rec.

[Lasher]

17. No defense budget or farm subsidy cuts, extended Bush tax cuts = not serious about deficits

It is morally reprehensible to dismantle domestic social programs while funding these things.

[dotymed]

22. This is their "game."

To make the average American so desperate by 2012 that they will vote for anyone who might change things. It is all about getting Obama out of office.

Seriously, he is as much a corporatist as they are (almost anyway) but he doesn't have an "R" in front of his name.

Americans have to get off the "R" and "D" bandwagons and build a strong, viable "anti-corporate party" that is well (grass-roots) funded and appeals to the disenfranchised of both "parties."

People before profits.

[Lasher]

28. Yes, that's the game but it started 30 years ago.

I agree that we must build an anti-corporate party (or change the Democratic party in a major way) to combat the neoliberals who have ruined the country, but I don't know how we could have a reasonable chance of bringing that about. Thanks to the careful planning and unlimited funding of the vast rightwing conspiracy, we have nowhere to turn.

[SoapBox]

18. It's time they be called what they are...ENTITLEMENTS!

Hell, the Thugs want to call SS and Medicare (of which WE have contributed money) entitlements.

I think it's time that the REAL entitlements be called thus...Farm subsidies and Big Oil subsidies. Total and complete give aways.

[Bob Loblaw]

21. I'd love to see a list ...

of members or families of members of both houses and both parties who receive farm subsidies themselves. I'd be most interested of course in those hippocrites who rail against the subsidies (i.e. dim bulb Rep. Marlin Stutzman R Indiana) yet accept them year after year.

[dotymed]

23. welcome to DU Bob and

you are so right. If we had an actual media (like "Free Speech" T.V.) that could afford to reach the masses, it would "make our heads explode."

[Lasher]

30. 23 Members of Congress Receive Farm Subsidies

The Environmental Working Group has determined that at least 23 representatives and senators, or their family members, applied for farm subsidy payments between 1995 and 2009. Seventeen were Republicans and six belonged to the Democratic Party, with the GOP taking in more than $5.3 million, compared to only $489,856 for Democrats.

The biggest beneficiaries of farm subsidies in the current Congress have been:
· Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-Tennessee) $3,368,843
· Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Missouri) $469,292
· Rep. Kristi Noem (R-South Dakota) $443,748
· Sen. John Tester (D-Montana) $442,303
· Rep. Tom Latham (R-Iowa) $330,046
Fincher, Hartzler, Noem and Tester are all first-term members of Congress.

Five crops— corn, cotton, rice, wheat and soybeans—account for 90% of the government’s farm subsidies and 74% of subsidies go to the top 10% of farms. According to the Department of Agriculture, 62% of U.S. farmers don’t receive any direct federal payments.

http://www.allgov.com//ViewNews/23_Members_of_Congress_Receive_Farm_Subsidies_110403

Full list here

[stubtoe]

31. Well done, Lasher, as always. n/t

[Lasher]

32. Why thank you, Stubtoe.

Very kind of you to say so.

[Downwinder]

24. Bachmann give up her welfare check? No way!

I'll believe it when I see it.

[russspeakeasy]

25. I am waiting for the monsanto rep to come back on and tell

us about the poor 160 acre farmer in Iowa... It's not "Green Acres" out there, it's Mega farms. big payments are made to those mega farms. "Screwing the hungry and helpless" is another name for trickle down. Commodity prices have doubled and still the subsidies. WTF ? There is plenty of blame to go around..."demo rats" and repukes are in this money trough up to their elbows.

[Heretofor]

27. Really?

Do we really believe that a Dem majority would have behaved differently here? They didn't cut them before the 2010 elections...