Perhaps the “New” Farm Bill Wouldn’t Be So “New” After All

It appears that I spoke too soon. According to a news article from Chris Clayton, one of America’s best agriculture reporters, the new House farm bill, due to be voted on today, will not necessarily be the gift to reformers I thought it might. The key paragraph of Chris’s story:

The bill would keep the same commodity, conservation, crop insurance and rural development provisions that were developed by the House Agriculture Committee and amended on the floor before the full farm bill failed to pass June 20. A key difference, however, is that the legislation also would repeal the 1938 and 1949 permanent farm law. The new Title I would become permanent law moving forward. [emphasis added]

That’s not good news at all. And it has been suggested that all of this “bill splitting” is just a vehicle for getting the bill done in pieces, to be reconciled back to its former self in conference. I guess that explains why Heritage Action for America and the Club for Growth, both organisations that one would expect to support this sort of move, have issued key vote alerts urging a “no” vote.

Back to the drawing board.