PDA

View Full Version : House Republicans Looking at Slashing Farm Subsidies



Conley
04-13-2012, 11:40 AM
The House Agriculture Committee has been told to make the biggest contribution - $8.2 billion for fiscal 2013 and $33.2 billion over 10 years. The Ryan budget documents suggested that $30 billion of this could come from farm subsidies and federal crop insurance programs - steps that would be deeply unpopular in farm states.

House Agriculture Committee chairman Frank Lucas said the panel will meet its specified targets but is still determining sources of the savings.

"I think the key phrase is, they are suggestions," said Lucas, an Oklahoma Republican during a radio interview early this month. "The positive thing is we have flexibility in how to make recommendations."

Democrats say the cuts are far larger than advertised - $180 billion over 10 years when the math includes a proposal to convert food stamps to a block grant and to limit its spending.

The deadline to identify budget-cut targets "will only muddy the waters and is a waste of time," said Collin Peterson of Minnesota, the committee's Democratic leader.

The House and Senate Agriculture committee plan to begin work on a five-year, $480 billion farm bill in the next couple of weeks. Peterson said the job will be tougher because of the dissension created by having to vote on budget cuts before writing farm and food policy for coming years.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/13/us-usa-budget-cuts-idUSBRE83B1QI20120413

There's definitely a lot money to be saved there...and a lot of votes to be lost. Will it happen?

MMC
04-13-2012, 11:59 AM
Damn just think if we got rid of that dept and the excuse the Democratic Senator gave about muddying those waters? Sounds like someone doesnt want to get down and dirty.....huh?

Conley
04-13-2012, 12:04 PM
I don't think Republicans are in any hurry to lose votes either though...this will be a tough sell. It is staggering to see how much we spend on these crops which end up causing so many health problems (like corn syrup for example).

MMC
04-13-2012, 12:15 PM
Wonder how many grants for Food stamps will be slashed since Obama wants to increas that level by 2015. But your right Corn Syrup. Plus how many are paid money not to do any farming by the Feds?

Mainecoons
04-13-2012, 01:07 PM
Let's have someone show up and explain to us why we need either this Department or these subsidies. Why are we borrowing money and giving it to corporate fat cat farmers?

Alias
04-13-2012, 02:15 PM
I don't buy anything with corn syrup in it. I sure like Fritos, though.

Dagny
04-13-2012, 02:19 PM
The House Agriculture Committee has been told to make the biggest contribution - $8.2 billion for fiscal 2013 and $33.2 billion over 10 years. The Ryan budget documents suggested that $30 billion of this could come from farm subsidies and federal crop insurance programs - steps that would be deeply unpopular in farm states.

House Agriculture Committee chairman Frank Lucas said the panel will meet its specified targets but is still determining sources of the savings.

"I think the key phrase is, they are suggestions," said Lucas, an Oklahoma Republican during a radio interview early this month. "The positive thing is we have flexibility in how to make recommendations."

Democrats say the cuts are far larger than advertised - $180 billion over 10 years when the math includes a proposal to convert food stamps to a block grant and to limit its spending.

The deadline to identify budget-cut targets "will only muddy the waters and is a waste of time," said Collin Peterson of Minnesota, the committee's Democratic leader.

The House and Senate Agriculture committee plan to begin work on a five-year, $480 billion farm bill in the next couple of weeks. Peterson said the job will be tougher because of the dissension created by having to vote on budget cuts before writing farm and food policy for coming years.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/13/us-usa-budget-cuts-idUSBRE83B1QI20120413

There's definitely a lot money to be saved there...and a lot of votes to be lost. Will it happen?
Given that the heartland is typically republican, this will be interesting. We need to make major cuts to these subsidies, but we need to make similar cuts to Oil subsidies, and Military spending.

No noise about those from repubs?

Conley
04-13-2012, 02:36 PM
Nope, apparently the defense budget is a lean, mean terrorist fighting machine operating at peak efficiency with no pork in sight.

MMC
04-13-2012, 03:04 PM
I got no problem with alternative fuels. Alcohol, Algae, nor any problem with Wind Or Solar. I am not even saying that certain cuts can't be made to defense. Yet there really is no need for this dept. Just think how much money that saves. Get rid of all those US Embassies and go to a centralized location for different regions of the planet. Brings home quite a few marines and other type of troops. Reduces all kinds of SOS useless staff. Then dump all those NFP's.

I think the states and those farmers need to be making decisions. Not the Fed.

Mainecoons
04-13-2012, 03:41 PM
Nope, apparently the defense budget is a lean, mean terrorist fighting machine operating at peak efficiency with no pork in sight.

:rofl:

How can you tell? Did the $500 toilet seats give them away?

It's not nice to pick on the Department of Offense.

:rofl:

Conley
04-13-2012, 03:48 PM
I got no problem with alternative fuels. Alcohol, Algae, nor any problem with Wind Or Solar. I am not even saying that certain cuts can't be made to defense. Yet there really is no need for this dept. Just think how much money that saves. Get rid of all those US Embassies and go to a centralized location for different regions of the planet. Brings home quite a few marines and other type of troops. Reduces all kinds of SOS useless staff. Then dump all those NFP's.

I think the states and those farmers need to be making decisions. Not the Fed.

A lot of this seems fairly obvious to the American people. It's another situation where DC and the populace are at odds. I know there are calls on all of us to make sacrifices but we could save a ton just by cleaning up the system.

A lot of that DoD, pardon me DoO (:wink) spending basically amounts to an oil subsidy. Quit screwing around in the Middle East and we'd have more money, no doubt about it. Now as far as federal investment into alternative energy, maybe that's not even necessary considering how much of a profit private business could make. There is plenty of incentive for that kind of research through profits alone.

Dagny
04-13-2012, 04:02 PM
A lot of this seems fairly obvious to the American people. It's another situation where DC and the populace are at odds. I know there are calls on all of us to make sacrifices but we could save a ton just by cleaning up the system.

A lot of that DoD, pardon me DoO (:wink) spending basically amounts to an oil subsidy. Quit screwing around in the Middle East and we'd have more money, no doubt about it. Now as far as federal investment into alternative energy, maybe that's not even necessary considering how much of a profit private business could make. There is plenty of incentive for that kind of research through profits alone.The problem with all of these issues, is the monied interests.

We should be leaving the soldiers where they are for now, and bringing home the 6 figure/year private contractors.

Likewise, the corn lobby has assured that we will put ethanol in our gas tanks, at a higher price than gasoline. Say nothing about the tons of petroleum it takes to refine corn squeezins.

The idea behind alternative energies, is to save money. Using corn for anything but bovine fodder is ridiculous.

Conley
04-13-2012, 04:13 PM
The private contractors are a good point...I don't really have a sense of how much of the budget they actually consume. I'm guessing that they accounted for a much larger piece of the pie a few years ago when Blackwater and the like were everywhere. Now that Iraq is on its own is our federal government employing that many?

Dagny
04-13-2012, 04:19 PM
The private contractors are a good point...I don't really have a sense of how much of the budget they actually consume. I'm guessing that they accounted for a much larger piece of the pie a few years ago when Blackwater and the like were everywhere. Now that Iraq is on its own is our federal government employing that many?
Indeed we are. Our soldiers are out of there. The embassy is being guarded by overpaid 'contractors'. Somewhere between 3000-5000.

dadakarma
04-13-2012, 04:38 PM
Indeed we are. Our soldiers are out of there. The embassy is being guarded by overpaid 'contractors'. Somewhere between 3000-5000.

Five billion a year just for operating costs.

Mainecoons
04-13-2012, 05:09 PM
Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex. He was right.

Peter1469
04-13-2012, 05:12 PM
Good idea. Most of these subsidies go to massive commercial farms that are harming the environment and our food supply.

ramone
04-13-2012, 06:19 PM
spending basically amounts to an oil subsidy.

Subsidy is a tax break, it is given to almost all businesses in some form. Our elected officials use the word "Subsidy" when it behooves them to do so. A rose by another name is still a rose CL. To single out the oil industry alone isn't right when they all get the same thing.

Dagny
04-13-2012, 06:28 PM
Subsidy is a tax break, it is given to almost all businesses in some form. Our elected officials use the word "Subsidy" when it behooves them to do so. A rose by another name is still a rose CL. To single out the oil industry alone isn't right when they all get the same thing.

As long as they have lots of lobby money.

Stoney
04-13-2012, 07:16 PM
One reason not to start government programs is they never go away or stay under control. If one party tries to cut or manage a program the other will use that to demonize them.

MMC
04-13-2012, 10:55 PM
Your correct on that one Stoney. Except one of those two always is about spending more money no matter what takes place in the country.

ramone
04-15-2012, 09:12 AM
The Gov used to pay farmers to not even plant crops, they still doing that crap? I had two uncles who were farmers and I never agreed with the way they used the system. Strict party line Democrat voting also, no matter who was running.

MMC
04-15-2012, 09:20 AM
The Gov used to pay farmers to not even plant crops, they still doing that crap? I had two uncles who were farmers and I never agreed with the way they used the system. Strict party line Democrat voting also, no matter who was running.


Yep, Ramone they do that here in and around Chicago. Farmers paid money not to plant crops. Plus if they put up those windturnbines. They get even more of a handout.

ramone
04-15-2012, 11:45 AM
Wind turbines are not effective. They have thousands of them setting idle in Cali. Now the eco fruits don't want anything to do with taking them down. They kill birds too, a little know fact. LOL

I'm not big on paying people to do nothing like this farm thing.