Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Update: Farm Bill Easily Passes House

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

The Conservationist
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

January 29, 2014

Update: Farm Bill Easily Passes House

By Bob Marshall


CC image from Flickr

The new Farm Bill, which includes critical conservation programs supported by sportsmen’s groups, sailed through the full House today by a vote of 251 to 166, clearing what is thought to be its last major hurdle.
 
The bill now goes to the Senate, where it faces little opposition, then on to President Obama for signing.
 
The nearly $1 trillion measure includes about $60 billion in conservation programs that benefit fish and wildlife, some of which have been in limbo since the previous Farm Bill expired more than a year ago.
 
Dave Hall, CEO of Ducks Unlimited, echoed praise that was being showered on House members by sportsmen’s groups. “This is a big win for conservation, and for working farmers and ranchers,” said Hall in a press release.
 
Stay tuned for more updates on the bill’s progress.

Comments (10)

Top Rated
All Comments
from Dcast wrote 11 weeks 1 day ago

This is my excited face.

Another Trillion dollars added to our deficit to allow worthless societal leaches to continue their existence off the backs of apparently useful idiots who take pride in the fact that the bust their A$$ for what they have! This is truly depressing that you or anyone else would be even the slightest bit happy this monstrosity passed, but I shouldn't forget that people like yourself can't think beyond the little warm fuzzy feeling that.06% of 1 TRILLION DOLLARS can bring.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 11 weeks 1 day ago

I forgot to mention that this was passed by a majority of REPUBLICANS and vote down by a majority of DEMOCRATS! Who would have thought? So I doubt that it will make it out of the senate without change due to the 1% decrease in food stamps that was passed in the House which will effectively kill the bill. So there is still hope that this will not pass!

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from American Native wrote 11 weeks 1 day ago

This is a great move for conservation efforts, sportsmen, and agriculturalists alike who understand the environmental impact and responsibilities they have.

The notion that this passage will "add to the deficit" fails to understand the immense economic impact that would occur if this Farm Bill does not get signed into action. As the saying goes, "one shouldn't bite their nose off to spite their face."

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 11 weeks 1 day ago

Once again someone comments on a topic they know absolutely nothing about! I would love to retype the break down of the bill once again for the lazy people who don't care to research the bill and what it actually is but I'm tired and it wouldn't make one bit of difference to you. Put simply it is a welfare bill nothing more and nothing less. Being called a "Farm Bill" is disgustingly negligent!

Please explain American Native how this does not in fact add to the deficit? 90% PLUS! That is over $900 Billion or $900,000,000,000 of this bill is goes to SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) AKA Welfare/Food Stamps. There is only three ways the government gets money 1) Taxes 2)Print money 3) Borrow so which one will they choose to pay for this bill because currently they are borrowing over $.40 per dollar they spend which is adding to the deficit. I beg you to please enlighten me and everyone else how?

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from American Native wrote 11 weeks 1 day ago

The explanation is pretty simple. Under existing law, the United States was already on pace to spend $972.9 billion on these programs over the next decade (meaning that it was already budgeted without drastically affecting the overall U.S. debt). The bill before Congress cuts spending, relative to that baseline, by about $16.5 billion (SAVING MONEY!). The Food Stamp programs that seem to be a soapbox item are also being cut by $8 billion overall, in this Farm Bill.

Keep in mind, this is all spent over a 10 year period, not all at once. Furthermore, the failure to get this Farm Bill through and enacted will cause an agricultural economic collapse, due to hyper-inflated prices associated with agricultural commodities. Meaning everything you eat, use for feed, and use for fuel will sky-rocket in price if this doesn't pass.

If you need more enlightenment, I suggest you get a subscription the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and your local newspaper - try to read them every morning.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Constant Gardener wrote 10 weeks 6 days ago

What I think D means when he says "disgustingly negligent" is that he thinks the Farm Bill is inaccurately named because so much of it is comprised of the SNAP program. D doesn't understand the common usage of "negligent" (which wouldn't include naming something) in much the same way he doesn't understand grammar, or economics, or how adding salt to water helps with making ice cream (it's crazy, right D?).

But the Farm Bill coming in a bit low "relative to baseline" isn't a helpful data point. Whether or not some program comes in above or below where it had been forecast by congress critters doesn't answer the question D is trying to ask, which is whether the bill adds to or reduces the deficit in real numbers. There is an objective answer to that question, but the "baseline" doesn't help get to it. (I'll concede that it isn't a great question to be asking about the bill because it looks past the macroeconomic effects of the bill but, well, it's D, so baby steps...)

More substantively, this post did a disservice by eliding the many harms that this iteration of the Farm Bill does. For instance, it cuts 25% of the total acreage that can be enrolled in CRP. CRP is a cheap program from which flows innumerable positive externalities, including cleaner air, cleaner water (less runoff D!) and increased hunting and fishing opportunities. DU did pretty well, but this is no occasion for a victory lap.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Horseapples wrote 10 weeks 6 days ago

Food security in the inner cities is an ever growing problem. Not everyone can suppliment their grocery pantry with wild game. The safety net exists D for good reason. Feeding your family with the help of food stamps is not luxury or edifying. Most who have to ask for the help would rather not. There are many folks working 40 plus hours per week who still need SNAP to feed their kids. Getting any consensus on any piece of federal legislation now days is a miracle in itself. Sure there is plenty of room for improvement in the bill but realty is, we got the best we could hope for.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Horseapples wrote 10 weeks 3 days ago

The following groups signed a letter encouraging the House to pass the bill: Archery Trade Association, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Boone and Crockett Club, Bowhunting Preservation Alliance, Delta Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited, Catch-A-Dream Foundation, Congressional Sportsmen Foundation, Conservation Force, Masters of Foxhounds Association, Mississippi River Trust, Mule Deer Foundation, National Association of Forest Service Retirees, National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation, North American Grouse Partnership, Pheasants Forever, Pope and Young Club, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ruffed Grouse Society, Texas Wildlife Association, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Quail Forever, Quality Deer Management Association, Wildlife Forever and Wildlife Mississippi.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from American Native wrote 10 weeks 3 days ago

I agree that the bill isn't the greatest piece of legislation - but at this point, and level of aptitude of our Congressional delegates, the bill has to go through. If Congress decides to provide a bill that is a SNAP stand alone, I'm all for it, but for now SNAP merely holds the Farm Bill and monies needed for conservation and agriculture hostage.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 9 weeks 5 days ago

Forget it Dcast! The "Lollipop Guild" is in it's element!
They're still convinced the CRP program doesn't cost the taxpayer "one red cent"!

Ametican Native
Whether "budgeted" or not, just" WHERE" does the Gov't (USDA) get the $962.9 BILLION it spends?
A. taxes
B. print it
C. borrow
D. thin air
E. that money tree in Jim Bob's back yard
....or is there an "Aunt Jememiah" mix for that?

It's real simple!
ANY money the Gov't spends, it gets from a taxpayer! ...OR! It borrows from China!

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from American Native wrote 11 weeks 1 day ago

This is a great move for conservation efforts, sportsmen, and agriculturalists alike who understand the environmental impact and responsibilities they have.

The notion that this passage will "add to the deficit" fails to understand the immense economic impact that would occur if this Farm Bill does not get signed into action. As the saying goes, "one shouldn't bite their nose off to spite their face."

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from American Native wrote 11 weeks 1 day ago

The explanation is pretty simple. Under existing law, the United States was already on pace to spend $972.9 billion on these programs over the next decade (meaning that it was already budgeted without drastically affecting the overall U.S. debt). The bill before Congress cuts spending, relative to that baseline, by about $16.5 billion (SAVING MONEY!). The Food Stamp programs that seem to be a soapbox item are also being cut by $8 billion overall, in this Farm Bill.

Keep in mind, this is all spent over a 10 year period, not all at once. Furthermore, the failure to get this Farm Bill through and enacted will cause an agricultural economic collapse, due to hyper-inflated prices associated with agricultural commodities. Meaning everything you eat, use for feed, and use for fuel will sky-rocket in price if this doesn't pass.

If you need more enlightenment, I suggest you get a subscription the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and your local newspaper - try to read them every morning.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Horseapples wrote 10 weeks 6 days ago

Food security in the inner cities is an ever growing problem. Not everyone can suppliment their grocery pantry with wild game. The safety net exists D for good reason. Feeding your family with the help of food stamps is not luxury or edifying. Most who have to ask for the help would rather not. There are many folks working 40 plus hours per week who still need SNAP to feed their kids. Getting any consensus on any piece of federal legislation now days is a miracle in itself. Sure there is plenty of room for improvement in the bill but realty is, we got the best we could hope for.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Horseapples wrote 10 weeks 3 days ago

The following groups signed a letter encouraging the House to pass the bill: Archery Trade Association, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Boone and Crockett Club, Bowhunting Preservation Alliance, Delta Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited, Catch-A-Dream Foundation, Congressional Sportsmen Foundation, Conservation Force, Masters of Foxhounds Association, Mississippi River Trust, Mule Deer Foundation, National Association of Forest Service Retirees, National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation, North American Grouse Partnership, Pheasants Forever, Pope and Young Club, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ruffed Grouse Society, Texas Wildlife Association, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Quail Forever, Quality Deer Management Association, Wildlife Forever and Wildlife Mississippi.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from American Native wrote 10 weeks 3 days ago

I agree that the bill isn't the greatest piece of legislation - but at this point, and level of aptitude of our Congressional delegates, the bill has to go through. If Congress decides to provide a bill that is a SNAP stand alone, I'm all for it, but for now SNAP merely holds the Farm Bill and monies needed for conservation and agriculture hostage.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Constant Gardener wrote 10 weeks 6 days ago

What I think D means when he says "disgustingly negligent" is that he thinks the Farm Bill is inaccurately named because so much of it is comprised of the SNAP program. D doesn't understand the common usage of "negligent" (which wouldn't include naming something) in much the same way he doesn't understand grammar, or economics, or how adding salt to water helps with making ice cream (it's crazy, right D?).

But the Farm Bill coming in a bit low "relative to baseline" isn't a helpful data point. Whether or not some program comes in above or below where it had been forecast by congress critters doesn't answer the question D is trying to ask, which is whether the bill adds to or reduces the deficit in real numbers. There is an objective answer to that question, but the "baseline" doesn't help get to it. (I'll concede that it isn't a great question to be asking about the bill because it looks past the macroeconomic effects of the bill but, well, it's D, so baby steps...)

More substantively, this post did a disservice by eliding the many harms that this iteration of the Farm Bill does. For instance, it cuts 25% of the total acreage that can be enrolled in CRP. CRP is a cheap program from which flows innumerable positive externalities, including cleaner air, cleaner water (less runoff D!) and increased hunting and fishing opportunities. DU did pretty well, but this is no occasion for a victory lap.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 9 weeks 5 days ago

Forget it Dcast! The "Lollipop Guild" is in it's element!
They're still convinced the CRP program doesn't cost the taxpayer "one red cent"!

Ametican Native
Whether "budgeted" or not, just" WHERE" does the Gov't (USDA) get the $962.9 BILLION it spends?
A. taxes
B. print it
C. borrow
D. thin air
E. that money tree in Jim Bob's back yard
....or is there an "Aunt Jememiah" mix for that?

It's real simple!
ANY money the Gov't spends, it gets from a taxpayer! ...OR! It borrows from China!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 11 weeks 1 day ago

I forgot to mention that this was passed by a majority of REPUBLICANS and vote down by a majority of DEMOCRATS! Who would have thought? So I doubt that it will make it out of the senate without change due to the 1% decrease in food stamps that was passed in the House which will effectively kill the bill. So there is still hope that this will not pass!

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 11 weeks 1 day ago

Once again someone comments on a topic they know absolutely nothing about! I would love to retype the break down of the bill once again for the lazy people who don't care to research the bill and what it actually is but I'm tired and it wouldn't make one bit of difference to you. Put simply it is a welfare bill nothing more and nothing less. Being called a "Farm Bill" is disgustingly negligent!

Please explain American Native how this does not in fact add to the deficit? 90% PLUS! That is over $900 Billion or $900,000,000,000 of this bill is goes to SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) AKA Welfare/Food Stamps. There is only three ways the government gets money 1) Taxes 2)Print money 3) Borrow so which one will they choose to pay for this bill because currently they are borrowing over $.40 per dollar they spend which is adding to the deficit. I beg you to please enlighten me and everyone else how?

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 11 weeks 1 day ago

This is my excited face.

Another Trillion dollars added to our deficit to allow worthless societal leaches to continue their existence off the backs of apparently useful idiots who take pride in the fact that the bust their A$$ for what they have! This is truly depressing that you or anyone else would be even the slightest bit happy this monstrosity passed, but I shouldn't forget that people like yourself can't think beyond the little warm fuzzy feeling that.06% of 1 TRILLION DOLLARS can bring.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment