House GOP freshmen failing the Farm Bill test
They took office 18 months ago full of piss and vinegar, the 84 freshmen Republicans who rode a wave of tea party invective about out-of-control government spending into a landmark election that allowed the GOP to take back the U.S. House.
But faced now with their first major test of free-market principles versus politics-as-usual, the Class of 2010 is thus far receiving a failing grade.
While hardly a homogenous bunch, perusing the websites of the freshmen members, one can easily see certain elements they have in common. Nearly all of them offered a statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s health care decision, with many pledging their support for a vote to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Most of the freshmen Republicans also touted their votes to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.
But the members’ sites are absolutely unanimous in another respect, which is what they don’t contain: A single critical word about the pork-laden, corporate welfare-doling, budget-busting $950 billion Farm Bill that was introduced last week.
Remember, this is a bill that is 60% larger than the last Farm Bill in 2008. And while it does manage to save $50 billion by eliminating the Average Crop Revenue Election Program and Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments, it redirects all but $14 billion of those savings back into new so-called “shallow loss” entitlement programs and a $10 billion expansion of the federal crop insurance program.
Given a $1.3 trillion federal deficit and $15 trillion of federal debt, one might think that a group of self-avowed budget hawks who came to Washington to make real change would take all of this a bit more seriously. One, however, would be wrong.
Now, the freshmen Republicans’ silence might fairly be attributed to the fact that, while the health care decision and the Holder vote were high-profile issues, the Farm Bill is a relatively low-profile concern that doesn’t merit an immediate public statement. And perhaps that’s true. But there are two major pieces of evidence which undercut that thesis:
- A majority of the freshmen Republicans cared enough about agriculture issues to tout their support for H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, which prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating dust from farms or dirt roads.
- Fourteen members of the freshmen class are also members of the House Agriculture Committee, which is set to mark up the Farm Bill this Wednesday.
Silence on the ridiculous waste embedded in the Farm Bill extends even to those freshmen members who are also members of the Tea Party Caucus, such as Florida’s Rich Nugent, Sandy Adams and Dennis Ross; Illinois’ Joe Walsh; Michigan’s Tim Walberg; Minnesota’s Chip Cravaak; Mississippi’s Steven Palazzo; New Mexico’s Steve Pearce; South Carolina’s Tim Scott, Jeff Duncan and Mick Mulvaney; Tennessee’s Diane Black; Texas’ Blake Farenthold; and West Virginia’s David McKinley.
Actually, it’s even worse than that. Some freshmen members of the Tea Party Caucus, who have been rather cavalier about pinning the “socialist” label on President Barack Obama, are positively apoplectic at the notion that anyone in Congress might consider scaling back taxpayer-financed agricultural subsidies, which flow disproportionately to the largest and wealthiest producers.
Witness Rep. Steven Fincher, R-Tenn., addressing the Southern Peanut Growers Conference :
“I’m afraid from some of the comments made by some of our colleagues in Washington that they want to slash and burn the Farm Bill on the ag side!”
Or Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., talking to South Florida farmers:
“The bottom line is as leaders we have to do everything we can to make sure agriculture remains a viable industry across the state of Florida.”
Or Rep. Jeff Landry, R-La., at a recent gathering of Louisiana rice growers:
“Washington politicians want to cut the vital farm safety net which makes up only 16% of the Farm Bill, while ignoring the fraud within the Food Stamp program which composes 73% of the Farm Bill.”
Of course, Landry got that completely backward. The House Farm Bill actually cuts $16 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. But it does nothing to cut the federal crop insurance program. In fact it expands it by $10 billion, $5 billion more than the Senate bill.
Also, unlike the Senate bill, which eliminates counter-cyclical programs, the House bill keeps those but gives them a new name (“Price Loss Coverage”) while also increasing the target prices from their current levels and nearly doubling the payment limit. Together with the new Revenue Loss Coverage “shallow loss” program, PLC and RLC are projected to cost $24.5 billion over the next decade, a total that is sure to climb much higher if current record crop prices prove unsustainable.
And it turns out that several freshmen Republicans, particularly those on the Ag Committee, were instrumental in preserving counter-cyclical payments. Committee member Rep. Martha Roby, R-Ala. – who co-chairs the House Peanut Caucus – pushed for both an increased floor in peanut price guarantees and a separate peanut crop insurance program (she got both in the final product.) Meanwhile, fellow committee member Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., has argued for maintaining both “direct and countercyclical payments,” thus staking out a more pro-spending position than even the Senate, whose bill fell $10 billion short of the already modest budget-savings target requested by the Obama White House.
A review of public statements by the freshmen members of the Agriculture Committee is more than enough to disabuse oneself of the idea that the Class of 2010 is actually serious about prioritizing principled budget-cutting above their districts’ own parochial interests. To provide just a sampling:
“Passing this bill will ensure that American farm families can continue producing the safest, most reliable and abundant supply of food on the planet.”
“There are valuable programs which support food safety, innovation, and agricultural security and I will express these priorities to Agriculture Committee Chairman Lucas as we take up the next Farm Bill.”
“I find it important to promote the growth and further development of the agricultural industry by keeping the proper funding available and encouraging economic growth in agriculture in Georgia, as well as nationwide.”
“As we move forward, I will continue to be a powerful advocate for the interests of Illinois’ farmers, ensuring that their voices are heard.”
“I look forward to advocating for the agricultural research and trade promotion programs that have helped our fruit and vegetable growers make great strides in recent years, and for the organic programs that serve a rapidly growing market.”
The closest one can find to a commitment to free-market principles among the freshmen committee members is probably the declaration from Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kansas, that “there will be some difficult decisions to be made” in considering the bill, adding that “every program should be under review as we evaluate our spending priorities.”
As a statement from a supposed budget hawk (Huelskamp is also a member of the Tea Party Caucus) about a bill that directs just $1 out of every $4 in potential savings into deficit reduction, this is fairly modest stuff. But hey, at this point, we’ll take whatever we can get.
All in all, to paraphrase Pete Townshend: Meet the new crop, same as the old crop.
