Commentary: Too many programs for Congress to assess
The congressional arguing over the farm bill is basically arguing over the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s budget. The farm bill should be less complicated than trying to pass a budget for the entire nation, but the USDA budget fight hasn’t been easy. If members of Congress cannot figure out how to deal with the farm bill economics, how in the world do they expect to complete a budget for all the departments and operational costs of each branch of the government, and have it total within the parameters of the budget cutting that is being demanded?
It would seem that the automatic budget cuts are the only way for Congress to trim the budget because there is no time available for Congress to tear apart every program, look at every dollar spent and require justification for every program—like seems to be occurring with the farm bill.
The USDA outlays estimated budget as provided by the U.S. Government Printing Office for 2011 fiscal year was about $152 million. The 2012 fiscal year budget estimate for the USDA is shown as $144 million. The percent of total U.S. government budget is about 4 percent of the total government outlays.
The rough outlays by some other departments are much larger with approximate percentages of the largest ones being projected as follows: Department of Defense, 19 percent; Dept. of Health and Human Services, 24 percent; Dept. of the Treasury, 15 percent; Social Security Administration, 22 percent.
Trying to tear apart department expenditures of the size that these departments/agencies spend would seem to be impossible for Congress, even if there weren’t party affiliation involved.
Looking at the farm bill budget there are a 100 associations tugging and pulling for Congress to keep programs they favor. When it comes to talking to members of Congress, each group has its bias and wish list. The example is livestock producers versus corn growers, Corn Belt farmers versus Southern farmers; specialty crop growers versus row-crop growers; organic growers versus conventional chemical farmers and many more lesser recognized competitions for money.
Farmers and ranchers talk with U.S. consumers explaining the agricultural industry and family farming using similar messages, but they cannot agree on one message in talking to members of Congress. There are economics involved that will hurt or help each and every group, and Congress holds the purse strings.
There also are all the outside groups not directly involved in farming putting in their two cents about agricultural issues and lobbying Congress. An example that came out last week was the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) complaining that no disaster payments should be paid at the expense of conservation programs. The NWF reported the House was scheduled to vote on providing drought relief to ranchers with the bill paid for “entirely by cuts to conservation programs.”
- EIA expects global oil consumption to grow in 2014
- Soy, wheat markets surged Tuesday
- Work underway to improve malting barley quality
- Commentary: Water police, part two: EPA proposal won't help ag
- Ukraine-Russia situation apparently boosted wheat futures again
- New and cool thought-leadership opportunities with LinkedIn
- Commentary: Blame anti-GMO groups for deaths
- Julie Borlaug says biotech is necessary in fight against hunger
- What does “sustainable” food and agriculture really mean?
- Climate change will reduce crop yields sooner than we thought
- Ohio bill to require certification to apply fertilizer
- Carbon-dioxide hurts nitrogen assimilation by plants