How to Fix the Current Farm Bill Fiasco

Congress should neither revert to the 1949 Farm Bill nor pass a new five-year Farm Bill. What's the alternative?

Having failed so far to pass a five-year Farm Bill despite repeated attempts, Congress is making what appears to be a final push to resuscitate the bill—the current version of which expired in September.

To no one’s surprise, there are the familiar, shopworn, and empty calls to craft “a smarter and more focused farm safety net for the future.”

But legislators and Farm Bill cheerleaders have also brought out their dandiest smoke and mirrors as part of the last-ditch effort.

The latest ploy by some in Congress to pass the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012—as the latest iteration of the five-year Farm Bill is known—is to the fashion the legislation as a deficit-reduction measure.

“The Farm Bill is the only bipartisan deficit reduction bill that passed the Senate this year,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the powerful Senate Agriculture Committee.

As I noted in a Reason column in May, a Minneapolis Star-Tribune editorial referred to one of the signature features of that “deficit reduction bill”—federally subsidized crop insurance—“as yet another congressional ‘boondoggle’ that ‘throw[s] money at farmers, whether they need it or not.’”

The notion that passing yet another bloated Farm Bill will somehow reduce the federal deficit is absurd to me and others as well. Joe Spear of the Mankato Free Press, for example, makes clear this Farm Bill would just throw good money after bad.

The more interesting argument in favor of passing a last-minute Farm Bill is the factually correct statement that not passing a new bill will automatically trigger a revival of 1949’s so-called permanent and “fairly scary” Farm Bill legislation.

It’s true that some facets of the 1949 bill—signed into law on Halloween that year—seem downright spooky.

First, the 1949 law parties like it’s still 1945. A Free Lance-Star report on the occasion of President Harry Truman signing the bill into law notes it "permits continuation of farm price support at or near wartime levels.” That’s “wartime” as in World War II.

The Miami News reported the law would increase the price of butter, decrease egg prices, and maintain "rigid high wartime supports for" wheat, corn, rice, and peanuts. It also added other products like honey to the list of agricultural products receiving similar support.

An increase in butter prices driven by the law was expected to be offset, as prices rose, by the federal government's expected dumping of nearly 100 million pounds of butter the government had stashed in cold storage.

The federal government estimated that under the 1949 Farm Bill it would spend more than $400 million (adjusted for inflation) per month to buy surplus agricultural products from U.S. farmers.

Despite all these hideous elements, the 1949 Farm Bill passed by wide bi-partisan margins in both the House and Senate.

How did such a terrible bill pass with such support? The chief debate over the 1949 Farm Bill—as now, unfortunately—was not whether price supports and other subsidies were a good idea or were the proper role of government but, rather, "how far the government should go in supporting farm prices."

That farmers wanted, needed, and deserved taxpayer subsidies is an idea that appears to have enjoyed wide support on both sides of the aisle.

The 1949 law—"passed by the present Democratic Congress—replaces most major provisions... enacted by the Republican 80th Congress," reported the Wilmington (Del.) Morning Star. "The GOP Law permitted somewhat lower supports for major crops."

That's not to say this slice of bi-partisan pork didn't have harsh critics.

The Pittsburgh Press editorial page blasted the new law under the headline "A Bone-Cracking Burden," calling it enough to "make the taxpayers even more angry about vote-seeking programs like buying farm produce with tax money to keep prices high."

"The taxpayer and the consumer are the forgotten man in this endeavor," complained Sen. Leverett Saltonstall (R-Mass.) after the bill's passage.

Even the president’s own support for the bill was lukewarm at best. Reports about President Truman signing the bill noted with surprise that he issued no signing statement to accompany the bill’s passage—a signal Truman was holding his nose as he signed it into law.

Criticism of post-1949 Farm Bills have been no less caustic than that levied by the Pittsburgh Press and Sen. Saltonstall.

A 1986 Milwaukee Journal editorial, for example, all but labeled American farmers employees of the U.S. government, noting that though "Uncle Sam himself... may not be out in the fields bringing in the crop... his money lines the pockets of many who are." The Journal then described virtually everything about how the Farm Bill works as "an insane way to do business."

And yet here we are today, witnessing Congress debating largely the same five-year plan.

So is it true that—without a new Farm Bill—we would be forced to live in an Instagram-like snapshot of the post-war America that existed before popcorn subsidies made her whole in recent years?

Not exactly.

One alternative either to passing a new Farm Bill or reverting to the 1949 bill would be to pass a one-year extension of the existing bill. A coalition of environmental, conservative, and libertarian groups is urging Congress to do just that.

They’re pushing for cuts of $100 billion as part of the extension. That’s in line with cuts I suggested in an October Reason column.

But even enacting those cuts might not prevent another back-to-the-future episode of the Farm Bill, where Congress could again use the threat of 1949 legislation in an attempt to ram through yet another lousy five-year plan.

But there is a fix. First, make sure this Farm Bill is the last Farm Bill. Second, if the specter of 1949 hanging over the heads of American farmers is truly the serious problem it appears to be, then Congress should do what it’s empowered to do but almost never does: Repeal the law.

Scrap the 1949 Farm Bill. It was a terrible idea then, and appears worse still today. It’s no alternative. So send it to the dustbin. Then Congress can and should get to work eliminating the very notion of farm subsidies and—indeed—of any sort of bloated, catch-all Farm Bill.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    "So send it to the dustbin. Then Congress can and should get to work eliminating the very notion of farm subsidies and—indeed—of any sort of bloated, catch-all Farm Bill."

    Dream on Baylen.

    OT - Fox and friends is on and they are talking about the school shooting. They are screeching for gun control. Their 'expert' is spouting complete bullshit. "He had to have accumulated the ammo over time", "hollowed out bullets that are the worst kind" , " they flower inside the body", "cops hate them because they can penetrate bullet proof vests".

    The dude could have easily bought bulk bullets at any sporting goods store five minutes before going to the school. Hollow points are designed to mushroom, but at pistol velocities they dont really do so all that effectively, especially in soft targets or thin targets. They absolutely do not, can not penetrate bullet proof vests. They are designed as low penetration bullets.

    Ugh, What horrible fuckers the gun control bunch is.

  • ||

    Well, here's some more horseshit to sour your day even more: Limetree Island's news outlets and their responses to the massacre.

    Everybody from the retarded BBC to that shitty ITV morning show panel for Limey soccer moms has gone into the sort of anti-American promulgation I haven't seen since the Iraq War.

    Apparently, we're "barbarians", we live in the 18th century, half of us (?) are complicit in the murders of those children, and "this is final proof the old world is better than the new, among so many other nuggets.

    What a motherfucking scourge of a society. The day I take a legion of Limey pinkos seriously is the day geese shit gold.

  • Xenocles||

    The day after the election some BBC opinion writer noted approvingly that the US had progressed to the point of electing a black president where once blacks were seen as "fit only to pick cotton." Apparently they don't teach British kids that slavery in the US started when we were British colonies or that the UK will probably never have a black PM and will almost certainly never have a black royal.

  • ||

    They're clueless about American history. That the United States were a confederacy before the Civil War, for example -- a union of sovereign nations with differing laws. So the fact that just as some places in the US retained slavery in one form or another until the end of the War Between the States, some had abolished it well before Britain did. Similar examples are available for the slave trade.

    Public education! Ah!

  • ||

    "The day I take a legion of Limey pinkos seriously is the day geese shit gold."

    I used to be something of an anglophile, but those days are decades behind me. I have nothing but contempt for them now.

    Hey, if you do manage to find those geese let me know. I would like to purchase one.

  • ||

  • ||

  • Improve Myself||

    lol ok...

  • robc||

    Check out the regular displays of racism that occur towards black players in the EPL.

    The NBA doesnt have to have special "dont shout racial epithets at the players" badges and days.

  • Xenocles||

    My wife was in the NROTC program at her college, which led to her having a semester at the RN's college in Dartmouth. That really opened her eyes to British racial customs - for such an enlightened people they don't seem to mind throwing around racial slurs. She says several students asked a group of visiting Japanese cadets what part of China they were from.

    The Brits still took the opportunity to grill my wife and her fellow American mids about US race relations.

  • General Butt Naked||

    The goddamn british know that the second amendment keeps up from becoming a nation of inbred, dole dependent, thankful for the surveillance state, sniveling fucking sycophants, so they kinda have to hate it.

  • ||

    Well put. I am going to steal that.

  • Xenocles||

    It does? That's not my impression at all.

  • Gladstone||

    The Bill of Rights of 1689 included the right to bear arms.

    Since the English seem to want a return to 17th century press censorship I suppose it makes sense that they are against gun rights too.

  • ||

    Everybody from the retarded BBC to that shitty ITV morning show panel for Limey soccer moms has gone into the sort of anti-American promulgation I haven't seen since the Iraq War.

    Heh. Al-Jazeera has them beat, and the hypocrisy is astounding; the outright fellation of His Pestilency is unparalleled. The local channels (ICTV, odin pljus odin, and UTR)) aren't quite as bad, but still a bit snarky. CNN International is beyond the pale.

    They (Al-Jazeera and CNN) keep running over and over some pathetic guy who is literally begging PrezBo to, and I quote, "Save us."

  • ||

    I have this tiny niggling fear watching all of that, the same one you get when you are near a crowd that is working itself up into a violent mob.

    No good will come of this.

  • db||

    You think they'll invade us because we have WMD's?

  • General Butt Naked||

    You never invade a country that actually has WMDs. They could use them on you!

    Jeeze.

  • califernian||

    I guess they never heard about that Norway massacre a couple years ago. EIther that or it was secretly put on by an american?

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Also off topic, but the reporting of facts yesterday was absolutely awful.

    I am guessing the reports of a second guy in the woods was completely made up? I haven't heard anything otherwise.

  • tarran||

    Possibly, or as John surmised, some unlucky hunter/birdwatcher picked a bad day & location to practice their sport.

  • db||

    Of course, there's nothing but speculation on this. Evidently they can't even get the story right about who his mother was. I heard they're now saying she didn't work for the school. How somebody came up with the shocking detail that the shooter targeted his mother's classroom is beyond me. You know what, I had written some speculative commentary on why there were rifle casings found in the school but the rifle was reported as found int the car, but the info sources are so unreliable right now that I'm just going to refrain from compounding the speculation.

  • tarran||

    Yep, Remember the car bomb that went off in front of the State Department on 9/11? ;)

  • SIV||

    It was John Doe #2. Once his credentials were confirmed they returned his remote mind control device and sent him on his way. /Infowars

  • General Butt Naked||

    Yesterday someone linked an article about rampage killers from a sociological/psychological viewpoint by this guy. I suggest everyone read it, especially the dumbshits in the media, as it goes way deeper than the soundbite driven, pop-psychology pontification of the evening news.

    Relating to what you said about the bulk ammo, the article explains the reason we see these guys having 1000's of rounds and a bunch of guns on them is psychological not tactical. It never happens that all of the guns/ammo are used. The arsenal is essentially a security blanket for these fucks.

  • tarran||

    Interesting...

    I wonder if, in light of that essay, making guns even more prohibited, even more forbidden-fruity would have the perverse effect of making these rampage-killers in waiting more motivated to engage in arsenal-building because it would be even more thrilling than it is now.

  • ||

    Here's the good news folks.

    This shit will go away. There will be no gun control enacted over this. The dipshit liberal media will bounce off the walls for several days and demand "common sense" gun laws...and nothing will happen.

    You know why? Because 2/3 of the nation doesn't want anything to do with it. Half the Democratic Congressmen are on the side of gun rights. Fuck, MT has TWO Dem senators. You think either one of them is going to vote to restrict 2A rights? It is only in the vocal bastions of left wing nuttery that restrictions are even considered. California, NYC, Chicago, NJ, DC... And on top of this, the tide is truly on our side wrt recent legislation.

    Also, the NRA.

    For me, gun rights are a line in the sand. If crossed, I WILL go to war to defend them and I think a lot of Americans feel the same way.

    It will probably happen eventually... but not in our lifetimes. Maybe your kid's.

  • db||

    This is what my GF was telling me last night. The consequences of full on confiscatory gun control are not something any government wants to handle or be responsible for starting. Her take is that no significant gun control measures will happen soon, particularly in light of the increased and broadened appeal of gun ownership in the last 15-20 years and the changing demographic of both gun owners and the types of guns people are buying nowadays.

    I really hope she's right.

  • ||

    That's my take too. Once everyone calms down they'll realize there's no stopping a crazy guy determined to kill a bunch of people. Without guns he could have done just as much damage driving a truck through the wall. The problem is the lunatic, not the lunatic's method.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I don't know. These guys are very attached to the notion of not letting a tragedy go to waste.

  • AlmightyJB||

    It doesn't even matter if they know you are right MS. It's not about anything other than forwarding an agenda.

  • ||

    There are always going to be those who jump at every chance to scare-monger the public. Their favorite tactic is to paint all gun owners as potential psychopaths. The bulk of the public knows we're not.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, now that Obama has been reelected, he can be "more flexible".

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I read this last night on twitter: "This is your 2nd term. Do it Obama. #GunControl"

    They expect him to save them from the terror of our redneck ways. Perhaps only if they had bottled up his tears yesterday, they would have their magic potion.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    For me, gun rights are a line in the sand. If crossed, I WILL go to war to defend them and I think a lot of Americans feel the same way.

    Here's hoping you shoot better than Lon Horiuchi.

    When they come for your guns....

  • Geoff Nathan||

    And besides, nobody has really faced what would really be involved if we were to actually take gun control seriously. If we really wanted to get rid of all guns, it would take a minute house to house search of every house in America, not to mention metal detectors through every back yard.
    But the folks who are saying 'sensible gun control now' haven't actually thought through what they are asking for.

  • Robert||

    "Know when we'll disarm? When those radical right wingers disarm." -- The President's Analyst (approx.)

  • bmp1701||

    About the only amusing thing about the farm bill is imagining what will happen when weed is nationally legalized and the government starts buying up surplus weed to prop up prices.

  • SIV||

    More likely they'd just issue "marijuana allotments".

  • ||

    We must stop the Jamaicans from dumping their low-priced weed on our shores and putting hard-working American weed farmers out of business!

  • mad libertarian guy||

    But there is a fix. First, make sure this Farm Bill is the last Farm Bill. Second, if the specter of 1949 hanging over the heads of American farmers is truly the serious problem it appears to be, then Congress should do what it’s empowered to do but almost never does: Repeal the law.

    How's that song go? Oh yeah.

  • ||

    The greatest band of all time!

  • ||

    Fill us in on some recent history.
    Did they pass the drought relief bill last summer or not? (Hopefully not).

  • ||

    Actually, for the fiscal conservatives out there, such as Amash, one thing they could do this fiscal cliff season is use it to their advantage to stall, delay, fillibuster, and kill all sorts of side spending bills apart from the "grand bargain" whatever that is.

    Just as the PPACA negotiations essentially killed cap-and-trade, make sure that fiscal cliff negotations consume all the time so that the farm bill never gets to a vote.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Nailed it! Though it was predictable.

    The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recently came to the same conclusion [as Gov Jindal]: that birth control is safe enough that it should not require a prescription. However, making contraception available over the counter would require women to pay for it out of pocket, whereas the Affordable Care Act currently requires that it be covered under most insurance plans with no co-pay.

    To the Feminist Horde, having easy, cheap access to BC is not what they seek. They seek others paying for it, presumably so they can fuck on the dime of others (we need to stop pretending that anything other than a very small fraction of people on the pill are on it for medical, as opposed to lifestyle, reasons - almost certainly less than 1%. They aren't birth contraceptive advocates, they are socialists leveraging women's issues as a vice to get us to their socialist utopia.

  • A Mathematician||

    )

  • robc||

    I would imagine that in a true free market, many insurers would happily cover OTC birth control to avoid paying for births.

    And if many didnt, it would be a selling point for the few who did.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I would imagine that in a true free market, many insurers would happily cover OTC birth control to avoid paying for births.

    If that's the case, what's stopping them from covering it now?

  • ||

    I would imagine that in a true free market, many insurers would happily cover OTC birth control to avoid paying for births.

    Why would they cover either one when the vast majority of pregnancies arise from consensual behaviour, therefore falling under elective lifestyle meds and procedures? Do they cover other OTC meds that may prevent other conditions, like ASA for stroke prevention?

    In fact, there is a very large segment of meds and procedures that, using the actual definition of insurance v. the misunderstood popular definition of "payment assistance", would go by the wayside very, very quickly, since a great many of conditions' and disease processes' etiologies are traced directly to lifestyle choices, and choosing to engage in sex is a lifestyle choice. [Planned Parenthood can step up to the plate for pregnancies arising from rape and start providing their services at no cost to patients if they really care about Wymyn's Health and not political power. (Guess what, they don't.)] If it's easily preventable, why should they pay for it?

    If you can take steps to prevent it, they shouldn't cover it.
    Giving everyone insurance and mandating what is covered dilutes the value of insurance, kinda like currency devaluation and inflation if minimum wage was a million USD for everyone.

  • ||

    Exactly. Insurance is for unforeseen expenses. Something you buy every month isn't exactly a surprise. Even if that weren't the case, why would anyone want to pay their insurance company an extra $35/month so that their $30 birth control pills would be covered? Save the overhead and just pay for them.

  • ||

    Unfortunately, feminism has turned into yet another self-interested interest group lobbying for a bigger share of the loot.

    This is what I hate the most about Obama and his gang. Their entire program explicitly caters to the moochers out there whose sole interest is in getting more free shit from the government.

    They aren't out there spreading a message of equality under the law to minorities and women. They're out there saying "vote for us and well give you more free shit. More welfare, free birth control,and we'll make other people (i.e. white males) pay for it." It's just disgusting that this approach works and that a majority of the country is now part of one of those craven interest groups slavishly voting for more stuff for themselves.

  • BMFPitt||

    Congress should instead get to work eliminating farm subsidies entirely.

    FTFY.

  • BarryD||

    Why is there a farm bill at all?

    When I was a kid, my father was an R&D engineer for a sporting goods company. He used to take me to visit the factory, right down the street from our house, south of Los Angeles. It was a cool experience.

    At some point, between the gross mismanagement of the company, changing times, problems with unions, etc., the place went away. I forget what's there now, but the whole factory complex is gone, torn down to make way for whatever the current economy wants.

    And at no time was there a Sporting Goods Bill, where the government bought up excess skis, basketballs and golf clubs to prop up prices. The Sporting Goods industry didn't get massive subsidies.

    And why should it have?!?

    Why, then, should the taxpayer be forced to give them to the Agriculture Industry?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Why do you want small farmers to starve?

    Eliminating a farm bill will also contribute, in some unknown amount, to immigration issues. If farms don't have guaranteed income whether they produce crops or not, they don't have guaranteed income to pay for unneeded workers, which means that fewer will come.

  • BarryD||

    We are creating more demand for immigrant labor using tax-funded subsidies, while not rationalizing our immigration policy and forcing immigrants underground. Then we complain about social ills caused by illegal immigration...

    Hell, why have ANY bills? Seems that government IS the problem here...

  • Brett L||

    Small farmers like Monsanto and ADM. Don't forget that part. It signposts parody so much better.

  • BarryD||

    And BTW I suspect there would be public outcry if a Sporting Goods Bill propped up the prices of basketballs, soccer balls, and the like, so that poor kids could not afford them, using our tax dollars to do it.

    Why do we tolerate doing the same with staple foods?

  • ||

    Why do we tolerate doing the same with staple foods?

    "He who controls The Spice, controls the universe."

  • db||

    Well, seeing as they're still pushing to make corn into an all purpose crop fro anything (It can do anything! It's food! It's feedstock for ethanol and bio-based chemicals!), a more conspiracy-theory-minded person than I might conclude that ADM and friends are trying to work legislation to give them de facto control of the "spice"--the most important substance in the universe.

  • ||

    Well, I am not a conspiracy loon a la "MONSANTO! GMO FRANKEN-CROPS! ADM!"; however, since Euro-landia banned GMO crops, ADM does make a mint on exporting "organic" crops to Euro-landia and the corn subsidies in particular do lend to a conclusion that which you postulate (or in the general ballpark), it's not entirely far-fetched. Besides, it's well-known and established fact that Taco Bell will win the franchise wars. Didn't you see that documentary Demolition Man?

    Besides, corn is a staple of many of the immigrants from south of the border...why would you deny recent arrivals their cultural staple, you racist, xenophobic, bigoted cotyledon kernelphobe?!

    Why do you hate tortillas? Don't you like Doritos?

  • BarryD||

    Shit! That's why people run across the border every night. To get our CORN!

    Tell Ms. Dalmia!

  • ||

    Speaking of Monsanto and the USA's southern neighbours...

    When GE corn was introduced in the mid-90s, Mexico was inhospitable to the new-fangled crop. The country's National Biosecurity Commission established a (non-legally binding) moratorium on genetically engineered corn in 1998 as a means to safeguard what is considered to be the planet's cradle of maize cultivation.

    Corn has been carefully tended in Mexico for eight millennia and environmental conservationists report that thousands of peasant varieties are still grown throughout the country. With an estimated 75 per cent of the planet's biodiversity vanished as of 1995, Mexico's heterogeneous corn fields are a rare vestige of the age prior to the "Green Revolution" era that is responsible for the artificially and unhealthily homogenous industrial agriculture that is prevalent now.

    Introducing GE corn to Mexico would sound the death knell for this precious ecology as it is widely agreed that GE crops cannot co-exist with conventionally bred seeds.

    Yes, I'm sure Sikha is all over this even as we speak. -P

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    With an estimated 75 per cent of the planet's biodiversity vanished as of 1995,

    Wait, what?

  • ||

    STOP quoting that movie!

  • ||

    What movie?

  • SKR||

    nostalgia

  • SKR||

    a hungry man is an angry man?

  • ||

    And at no time was there a Sporting Goods Bill, where the government bought up excess skis, basketballs and golf clubs to prop up prices. The Sporting Goods industry didn't get massive subsidies.

    If one is deprived of sporting goods, they don't die of starvation or go hungry. You wouldn't want children to starve, would you, you big meanie?

    Why, then, should the taxpayer be forced to give them to the Agriculture Industry?

    Considering we export more of our ag products for foodstuff consumption than we use for domestic foodstuffs and the Gaia-saving, precious juice ethanol, think of it as windows made of spun HFCS sugar.

  • BarryD||

    Children are not starving now, in liberalland. That's so LBJ. Now they're all too fat, which means they need sporting goods, which also used to be an American export and are now an import...

    Or we could let the market sort it out, and save ourselves a lot of money in the process. Can't do that, though.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    If one is deprived of sporting goods, they don't die of starvation or go hungry.

    Of course the only depriving happening is that which takes place under the guise of government action, being as they're the one who buy u; surplus food and store it away in order to keep prices inflated.

  • BarryD||

    And then they tell us it's the Mormons doing that.

  • BMFPitt||

    If they were actually buying up stock for some kind of emergency grain reserve (and selling it off as it nears "expiration"), I could see that as a justifiable activity for the government to engage in.

    But instead they're paying farmers to not farm, and creating artificial demand for ethanol, etc.

  • BarryD||

    Right.

    It's legitimate to stockpile some goods for emergency use by the military, during natural disasters, etc.

    As it stands, FEMA didn't even have fucking WATER to give people when Sandy damaged a densely-populated area. It's not like they had to get water to Nome or Lanai, here, either. They just had to have some water for New Jersey. And they couldn't even do THAT.

  • tarran||

    If the Wermacht had FEMA handling their logistics in the run up to WW-II, they wouldn't have made it 2 miles into Poland before running out of gas, and their infantry men would have been issued 20mm machine gun bullets while the Luftwaffe would be grounded for a lack of ammo.

    And many a Belgian baby would have slept safely in its crib.

  • BarryD||

    Your point being, say what you want about the Nazis, but the fuckers sure were efficient? :)

  • tarran||

    Actually, they were inefficient!

    Invading Russia with no cold weather gear?!?

  • BarryD||

    Hubris. They could have learned from France, but they didn't think enough of France, to pay attention.

  • BarryD||

    So you're saying that the Nazis were idiots, really, but still orders of magnitude better than FEMA? Sounds about right. :)

  • ||

    What FDR's communist head of the Agriculture Department, Henry Wallace, did to the U.S. government will never be "fixed."

  • ||

    What FDR's communist head of the Agriculture Department, Henry Wallace, did to the U.S. government will never be "fixed."

    FIFY

  • waaminn||

    Sometimes dude, you jsut have to roll with it.

    www.Matters-Anon.tk

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    But we depend on farms for food! If we don't pass a Farm Bill, where will our food come from? Sure, the rich will be able to buy food from responsible countries like Canada, but what about the poor? Are the Republicans just going to let them starve?

  • ||

    The Republicans will NEVER do this since they love farm pork so much, but it would be awfully easy to counter those sorts of arguments by pointing out that paying farmers to plow under their crops makes food MORE expensive, not less.

  • ||

    Having failed so far to pass a five-year Farm Bill despite repeated attempts.

    You know who else passed Five-Year Farm Bills?

  • AlmightyJB||

    And they always proceeded according to plan according to official reports

  • Sevo||

    Quotas were always met!

  • ||

    Oliver Wendell Douglas?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Captain Sisko.

  • Cut out the crap||

  • Robert||

    I had no idea that federal farm bills during my lifetime were temporary amendments to the AAA, thanks.

    The reason you find the idea of spending money as saving money to be absurd is that you're idealistic. Same as the spouse claiming to have saved money by spending it on bargain items. You conceive of the alternative as not buying anything, but that's not on the menu.

  • uythsb||

    Merry Christmas

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement