This Year's Farm Bill Threatens To Be a Bigger Monster Than Ever
The massive piece of legislation embodies all that is wrong with American lawmaking.

In many ways, the farm bill up for consideration this year in Congress embodies all that is wrong with American lawmaking. It's a massive piece of legislation, combining unrelated matters to commit the U.S. government to spending mind-bending amounts of money at a single go. Passed roughly every five years, farm bills are less about legislating in any deliberative sense than they are about lawmakers packaging a trillion-plus dollars of goodies and committing taxpayers to fund them for years to come—and then doing it over and over again.
"Every five years, Congress passes legislation that sets national agriculture, nutrition, conservation, and forestry policy, commonly referred to as the 'Farm Bill'," the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry blandly notes. "The Committee formally kicked off its process for the 2023 Farm Bill with field hearings in both Michigan and Arkansas in 2022. Hearings continued in November and December of 2022, and will continue throughout the early parts of 2023."
Worse Than You Think
In the popular imagination, to the limited extent most people think about the issue, "farm bill" is largely synonymous with lingering New Deal-derived subsidies to farmers, and those are certainly in there. But there is also so much more.
"The farm bill funds a safety net for farmers through crop insurance and support for those growing key commodities, as well as nutrition programs run by the Agriculture Department, primarily food stamps," The Wall Street Journal's Kristina Peterson noted in November. That weird blend of programs is a result of the horse-trading "which since the 1970s has yoked support for farmers, including crop insurance, to funding for food stamps," she added.
That combination of food stamps and farming subsidies is the sort of unholy political deal that makes cutting government spending so challenging. That's not an accident.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
A Match Made in Legislative Hell
"By 1973, the number of congressional districts dependent on farming were shrinking, but farm bills had grown in cost and frequency," Ryan Alexander, then-president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, pointed out in 2018 as the debate raged over the last farm bill. "How to maintain support for the shrinking farm constituency? By adding food assistance – at the time, food stamps – to the package. The shotgun marriage of farm aid and food stamps meant rural and urban members of Congress came together to get the farm bill over the finish line."
That not only means that the farm bill is an unhappy blend of unrelated matters jammed into a single compromise piece of legislation, but that its spending emphasis is not what you might expect.
"Although we think of the farm bill as a subsidy bill, it's actually heavily tilted toward nutrition—in the last (2018) farm bill, for example, more than 75 percent of federal outlays were actually for SNAP and related programs," the Cato Institute's Scott Lincicome observed in 2020.
SNAP is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as "food stamps," that subsidizes the food budgets of lower-income families (monthly benefits averaged $239 in 2018 and were temporarily increased during the pandemic). It now consumes the lion's share of spending in the so-called farm bill. But that doesn't mean that farmers are getting shortchanged in their take of other people's money. Oh, no, they do quite well themselves.
"This year, farmers (on net) will derive almost 40 percent of their income directly from the U.S. government," added Lincicome. "Given the duration and magnitude of federal support, there's perhaps no U.S. industry that has attracted more taxpayer subsidies—more consistently—than agribusiness."
This unhappy merger of interests means a lot of tax money being spread around.
A Trillion Here, a Trillion There…
"The 10-year baseline (FY2024-2033) for the Farm Bill is projected to be over $1.4 trillion, or roughly $140 billion each fiscal year," estimates Jonathan Coppess of the University of Illinois's farmdoc daily. "Food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) accounts for 85% of the projected Farm Bill spending. For farmers, the largest share is for crop insurance (7%)."
That's only an estimate since members of Congress are hashing out the details of the legislation. The House and Senate Agriculture committees are still holding hearings on the farm bill as are individual members of Congress. But those hearings are more likely to shift money around among various subsidy programs than to seriously curtail giveaways or reduce the overall cost of the final bill. After all, as Rep. Glenn "GT" Thompson (R-Pa.), chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, commented this week: "The Farm Bill is one of few remaining pieces of legislation steeped in consensus."
That's probably true. If Congress still agrees on anything, it's that money milked from taxpayers should be used to pay off supporters and purchase votes. And everything costs more these days, votes included.
"Increases in the Nutrition title since 2018 reflect consequences of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, inflation, and administrative adjustments pursuant to the 2018 farm bill. For the non-nutrition agriculture programs in the farm bill, current economic projections are that program outlays would be $221 billion over the next 10 years, 5% greater than at enactment in 2018," the Congressional Research Service projected last month.
The nonpartisan agency added that "since FY2020, Congress and the White House have provided supplemental pandemic assistance of over $30 billion to farms and over $60 billion for nutrition assistance." Future supplemental spending may further increase the final farm bill price tag.
Monster Subsidies That Are Unnecessary, But Seemingly Unstoppable
Cato's Lincicome pointed out that Australia and New Zealand both largely eliminated agricultural supports years ago and remain major producers. Their farmers learned to adapt and innovate in response to the market.
"In the midst of a financial crisis in the mid-1980s, New Zealand decided to swallow a bitter pill and scrap all farm subsidies," The Times of London reported in 2017. "There were nationwide protests, more than 50 suicides as land values plummeted and interest rates soared for indebted farmers no longer eligible for cheap finance. Yet today the country's farm sector is thriving and much more diversified."
But the legislative Frankenstein monsters that are modern U.S. farm bills create mutually reinforcing lobbies for raiding taxpayers and spending their money. That makes New Zealand-style agricultural reform enormously difficult, with SNAP rolled into the deal.
This isn't just about the seemingly unstoppable beast that is federal agricultural spending. This is also a cautionary tale about government meddling and subsidies in markets. At a time when the Biden administration is actively promoting industrial policy as a means of promoting American jobs and manufacturers (and making them dependent on government largesse), the farm bill demonstrates the dangers in unleashing policy monsters on the world.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Didn't they kill the whole idea of the farm bill back when Bill Clinton declared the era of big government was over? Seems like just the other day when that happened, and it's a good thing, too.
I think Willie Nelson threw a concert and everyone forgot.
I am making over $30k a month working part time. I am a full time college student and just working for 3 to 4 hrs a day. Everybody must try this home online job now by just use this Following
Website........ http://Www.Smartjob1.com
John Camp Meloncougar was also there.
I get paid between $145 and $395 an hour online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining it I easily made $23,000 with no online skills. Just try it on the companion page.
.
.
Apply Now Here———————->>> https://salarycash710.blogspot.com/
On the one hand, we at least get/got an acknowledgement that farmers are a minority share of the spending on any given Farm Bill. OTOH, it still reads like Farm subsidies are the primary reason we should oppose the farm bill despite the fact that the budget numbers, participation numbers, qualifications for outlays, and votes purchased per dollar are nowhere near parsimonious.
Also, the statement, "Cato's Lincicome pointed out that Australia and New Zealand both largely eliminated agricultural supports years ago and remain major producers." is largely disingenuous bullshit.
They did cut dedicated farm spending, but they cut it from well above direct US outlays proportionately by diversifying and cutting so that direct outlays are a fractional portion of US outlays by gross value. That is, Aussies and Kiwis still get crop insurance, they just get it from private insurers backed by the State so the money doesn't get counted as crop insurance. Moreover, they get money as part of research grants, like US farmers get for conservation efforts which, again, get parsed out differently in the US and AUS.
Additionally, they account for a far less, and shrinking, portion of global agricultural trade. Meaning they can whimsically raise and
cut farm spendingconduct government-funded agricultural research more freely without global disruption. The suggestion that the US could fix the Farm Bill by following Australia or NZ is like suggesting the US could fix race relations by adopting Australia or NZ as a model.Thanks for clarifying, I wasn't about to do the reading on the details.
I too noticed that emphasis in the article, where the numbers say one thing but the amount of text says another. Maybe there was no reasonable reform model, or the appearance of one, that Jerry Jr. could point to for SNAP. I can think of some, besides simple, straightforward cuts.
One would be Bill Buckley's model wherein instead of near-cash, anybody who wants it can get any amount they want of just 5 (+/-) foodstuffs that were calculated to provide complete nutrition and are mostly piled up already by government, like cheese, no questions asked.
Another model would be like I and Don Meinshausen have been doing as a household since last year, at his behest: using volunteer food banks/pantries. These give away donated food, costing taxpayers nothing. One of them also teaches vegetable farming, giving away their product.
Yet another model is Meals on Wheels, an umbrella term for a variety of volunteer programs that deliver prepared food.
Yes, and how about the role SNAP plays in creating shortages in things like baby formula? They institute soft price controls that strangle competition and pick favorites, so we end up just three major producers across the entire US, and using a ton of products from the same single factory. The farm bill might be an opportunity to rein in SNAP and fix some of the long term weaknesses in formula production.
I think that WIC is the bigger subsidy for baby formula, particularly in the category of picking favorites since the WIC coupons specify only 1 or 2 brands of formula that you can purchase with them.
I don't know if WIC is tied up in the Farm Bill, but I would think if it was its a big enough program to have been called out explicitly in the article.
WIC is funded by USDA, so it's probably attached to the farm bill.
No do SNAP with open borders. We grow the population of recipients and shrink the population that pays federal income tax.
>>New Deal-derived subsidies to farmers
I grow no crops and am not subsidized wtf
There are a lot of people around me that lease farmland for about $10/acre/year and then don't do anything with it. Since their "farm" didn't make any money they claim subsidies and tax credits for it.
So that’s why Bill Gates is buying farmland????
^What you say when you don’t know dick about the topic on which you’re speaking.
You can’t just claim by virtue of holding land. If it’s crop insurance, you have to have planted and, in the case indicated, the farmer/lessee would be the one filing for losses (assuming any), not the land owner and if it’s conservation, then you can’t lease the land to be farmed (and given other copious amounts of ‘green’ spending would/could be qualified for otherwise).
Receipts or GTFO, dumbass.
So I guess my neighbors and former coworkers are spending 2500-5000/yr for nothing.
So, you're asserting their expenditure is proof of a subsidy?
Maybe you think "receipts" just means "throw out a dollar amount without any other context"?
The farm bill subsidies determine the rent paid on the land. Even if the check goes to the farmer who rents, it's just temporarily there.
I think you're advancing an argument defaultdotxbe isn't making, which is why I asked for receipts. Also, it's a bit nonsensical. For the bill to determine the rent paid on the land, you'd have to know you were going to get a subsidy before leasing.
I'm not asserting that the Farm Bill doesn't effect and create a feedback loop with land lease agreements, just much less so than fuel costs (on- and off-road), equipment costs, seed costs, etc. More critically, crop insurance/subsidies are a vast minority of any given Farm Bill and have, since inception, relatively high "rule in" criteria whereas SNAP is the overwhelming majority and have few, low, and relatively recent (and contentious) "rule out" criteria.
The people collecting $ just sitting on land are much, *much* fewer both dollar-wise and number-wise than those sitting at home collecting SNAP benefits. Even if you actually were disabled and your farm an actual disaster, SNAP is easier and more guaranteed than a farm subsidy.
Well, duh, robbing banks (and one police station) was your new deal.
Who pays for this? The top 10 percent of income tax payers, on scale, in the U.S.
https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/
Food inflation is still rising.
They are the recipients of most of this
Maybe the .03 percent. In any case it’s still the finance industry that benefits from corporate fascism. Gee, I wonder who runs the pensions for Unions. Aren’t you the one who defended the bailout of deposits over 250k at SVB? Every single one of those depositors knew the damn limits on insurance choose not to use swap services (Oprah Winfrey) they knew they would be bailed out and you agreed.
Open your eyes.
Aren’t you the one who defended the bailout of deposits over 250k at SVB?
What fucking planet are you on? I’m the one who’s advocated a post office bank with 100% backing by T-bills in order to eliminate the FDIC entirely. And I advocated that as far back as 2008
The top 10 producers just pass that cost onto EVERYONE.
Value is immune from taxation so it really only keeps the 'slaves' from building enough value to compete with the value giants. As-if that hasn't been proven throughout history and in the USA with it's growing taxation and it's growing wealth disparity.
Urban legislators pile on the farm bill because, over time, the bill works to lower prices for output from the farmer. I live in a rural farm area and can see most government advice and aid is focused on increasing farm output and not farm profitability. I have opened a few farmers eyes when I have discussed it with them. They then talk about how the extension agent is mostly concerned about them producing more and not net profit. Big farmers profit from the programs not smaller family farms. Dairy farming is a prime example of this.
Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page…
AND GOOD LUCK HERE………………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Anyway, the new budding industry of Climate lawsuits hits the Supreme Court. I expect the feds or states to go after farming. Was it Sri Lanka that fruited the yields of the climate grifters?
Eat ze bugs!
It's not a farm bill. It's a farm landowner bill. A significant part of the subsidy ends up in the pockets of NYC hedge funds, billionaires and other urban land investors. Raises the price of farmland and delivers a safety net for the wealthy.
It’s a farm
landownermanager's bill.See Ride 'Em and my points above. This actually explains your assertion more correctly/accurately as well. If you hand out $1M to 1000 "farmers" *evenly* and $8M to 1000 SNAP recipients, the farmers and the SNAP recipients are in, relatively, the same boat. The only way you get disproportionately huge sums handed to any given "farmer" is if you hand $990K to a few and the remainder to the rest. This also drives at the land lease agreement "misconception".
Still a grift all the way around but, still, the assertion that the farmer's are predominantly the guilty ones is a falsehood several layers deep.
Yesterday Speaker McCarthy sent President Biden an outline of cuts he would like in return for help raising the debt ceiling. I don't think the farm bill was selected for cuts, although it could well use a cut.
It must be Trump's fault. There is no other logical explanation!
According to a Guardian special investigation 2018, Koch industries owned 200,000 acres of farmland in the U.S.
To fight real fascism in the U.S. means that at least 60 - 70 percent of the population has to contribute to the federal government. This is the only way to cut spending and abolish federal income tax. It turns out, 8-9 out of 10 do not like paying taxes and enjoy grandiose promises and virtue signaling. We vote for corporate fascism and we’re getting it.
Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page…
AND GOOD LUCK HERE………………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Can't have a [Na]tional So[zi]alist Empire without CENTRAL planned economies.
Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page…
AND GOOD LUCK HERE………………….>>> http://www.apprichs.com
The farm bill is the epitome of all that is wrong with government.
"...all the problems with lawmaking."??? Forget the bad laws and focus on "the root of the problem": Law is the initiation of violence, NOT reason, rights, choice. Law is immoral, irrational, destructive of society, unsustainable. Think: LAW & CHAOS!
Voluntary interactions create order, respect, rules that work.
Read: "The Most Dangerous Superstition" by Larken Rose.
I’ve made $1250 so far this week working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’AM made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Here’s what I do, .for more information simply.
Open this link thank you……>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com