WASHINGTON — Many politicians and experts view the fiscal cliff as a looming economic crisis, but to those backing a new farm bill, it also represents an opportunity.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., who is chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and Rep. Frank D. Lucas, R-Okla., chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, are trying to persuade administration and congressional leaders to include the five-year farm bill in negotiations to avoid the cliff — more than $500 billion in tax increases and more than $100 billion in automatic spending cuts that would take effect at the end of the year.
“The farm bill is the only bipartisan deficit reduction bill that passed the Senate this year. It's only natural it should be part of a larger deficit reduction agreement,” Stabenow said.
The Senate this year passed a $969 billion farm bill that would spend about $23 billion less than the current farm bill over 10 years. The House Agriculture Committee passed its own version that spends $35 billion less. Both save $5 billion by eliminating subsidies known as direct payments and both cut the federal nutrition program commonly known as food stamps, although the House version has much deeper cuts to the nutrition program.
Conservative House Republicans have pushed for even deeper nutrition cuts, however.
Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., said Thursday that it now appears a five-year farm bill has no chance of moving through the House on its own, but there are reasons to believe it could be included in a broader budget deal to avoid the fiscal cliff.
After all, the Senate and House versions both include tens of billions of dollars in deficit reduction.
“That's real savings that would go to the bottom line,” Johanns said.
Not everyone agrees with that assessment.
For example, the advocacy group Taxpayers for Common Sense has criticized both farm bill proposals, pointing out that their deficit reduction comes only in comparison with allowing the current law to cruise forward on automatic pilot.
The proposals would substantially increase the government's farm bill spending overall when compared with what the previous measure cost.
But because congressional budgeting rules officially credit the farm bill proposals with billions in deficit reduction, they could help the numbers add up in any agreement to avoid the cliff.
Lucas has said the bill's only real chance for passage is if lawmakers decide to use its savings as part of the debt negotiations.
To be included, differences between the Senate and House versions of the farm bill will have to be ironed out.
Top lawmakers from the House and Senate committees have been working on just that.
One big difference is the House version has those much deeper cuts to nutrition programs, but also provisions favorable to some Southern crops such as rice and peanuts.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, a senior member of the Agriculture Committee and its former chairman, said Thursday he had urged Stabenow to compromise on the rice and peanut provisions.
“Fine, make some agreement on that and move ahead,” Harkin said. “I've had to make those agreements in the past, too, but don't, don't go down the road with the House on cutting the (food stamp) program any more than we did.
“And I think Sen. Stabenow is pretty firm on that.”
Written By: Joseph Morton
This report includes material from the New York Times.
Original Publication URL: http://www.omaha.com/article/20121207/NEWS/121209776/1694
Discussion
Sign Up for Updates
