Should the US cut 4 or 40 Billion from the Farm Bill?

[GGT]

Beginning with SNAP (aka Food Stamps), and leaving Agricultural subsidies intact?

[RandBlade]

All of it.

[GGT]

All of it.

The UK doesn't have an equivalent to the US Farm Bill, does it?


Edit: These are real numbers, proposed by political parties, over ten years of budget cuts. The entire Farm Bill is "valued" much higher, with Big Ag and its subsidies benefiting more than people needing food assistance.

Seems to me that US legislators should stop subsidizing Corporate Welfare before they cut Public Welfare.

And....since there's so much room between 4 and 40, compromise isn't such a bad principle.

[RandBlade]

Yes we do. The EU has the Common Agricultual Policy (CAP) which a hefty chunk of its funding goes on. I'm in favour of the full scale abolition of that too. Funding farmers like we do is immoral and they should sink or swim.

[wiggin]

The issue with our farm bill is that it conflates two entirely different things - agricultural subsidies and food aid for the poor. The first should be abolished entirely, it's a major distortion to the market and wasteful of precious funds. It will never happen, though, for obvious political reasons. There are some reasonable parts to this complex set of subsidies (e.g. crop insurance) but those should be dealt with in a much less distortionary manner. Stuff like the biofuel subsidies, though, should be scrapped entirely.

The second (food aid for the poor) is more complex, but definitely in need of reform. Traditional economics would militate against using food stamps and instead replace it with cash. There's some fairly reasonable arguments in more recent times against such a policy, though. Some of the school nutrition programs, for example, could be fixed up and would do some real good.

The bill should be split up into logical parts, and each reformed or abolished on its own merits.

[Flixy]

Yeah, it always seemed strange to me that aid and subsidies were combined, since they really aren't that connected (aside from both concerning food).

[wiggin]

Politics.

[Hazir]

Yes we do. The EU has the Common Agricultual Policy (CAP) which a hefty chunk of its funding goes on. I'm in favour of the full scale abolition of that too. Funding farmers like we do is immoral and they should sink or swim.

No we don't. The CAP isn't hooked up with a welfare program of any kind. Whatever you may think of it, the ratio behind it is NOT welfare of farmers.

[RandBlade]

Yes it is. The French farmers don't want it in order to guarantee food supply. The politics and logic are identical and anything else is just smoke and mirrors.

[Hazir]

Yes it is. The French farmers don't want it in order to guarantee food supply. The politics and logic are identical and anything else is just smoke and mirrors.

Being your usual twat again I see? Only in your deluded mind farm subsidies and welfare for poor families can be the same.

[RandBlade]

"Welfare of poor families" != "welfare of farmers". Why switch the terms unless you're trying to be a deceptive "twat"

[GGT]

The bill should be split up into logical parts, and each reformed or abolished on its own merits.

I can understand why we'd want to assist farmers with crop insurance (for weather-related disasters) or low interest rate loans for small/family farmers buying expensive equipment....but the remainder are subsidies for Big Ag. There's no reason to continue subsidizing sugar or corn for food (let alone Big Oil for biofuels), or buying surplus dairy or meat, etc. since the majority is produced/processed/distributed by conglomerates making huge profits.

I think it's a horrible idea to make drastic cuts to SNAP, at a time when ~46 million people need it to fill their low-income gap. It's not like congress is making headway on raising minimum wage, or passing a Jobs Bill, or making college more affordable. And those chained CPI proposal for SS (elderly/disabled) will only hurt their food budgets...increasing demand for SNAP.

Yeah, it always seemed strange to me that aid and subsidies were combined, since they really aren't that connected (aside from both concerning food).

I think it's because the Farm Bill dates back to the Great Depression and The Dust Bowl era, when farmers couldn't grow food (or animal feed) and millions of people were out of work, standing in soup lines. It was probably a win/win for those desperate times, but times have changed.

As wiggin said, it's entirely political.

He's also correct that school food programs could use a thorough revamp, saving money while providing more nutritious meals for kids. Giving parents e-cash (EBT) to buy family groceries only goes so far....but the children shouldn't be deprived ("punished") by eliminating all school lunches, as some have proposed.