An Urban's Rural View

Like any Certified Public Accountant, Congressman Michael Conaway can count. And when Conaway, a member of the House Agriculture Committee, counts farm-bill votes, he reaches different conclusions than some of his fellow Republicans.

In a legislative body like the House that's dominated by lawyers -- actually, aren't all legislative bodies dominated by lawyers -- the ag committee stands out for having not one but two CPAs. My last blog post (http://tiny.cc/…) laid out the farm-bill calculations of ranking member Collin Peterson, CPA-Minnesota. This post covers those of Michael Conaway, CPA-Texas.

By his count, he told the North American Agricultural Journalists, there aren't enough Republican votes in the House to pass a farm bill this year. Though Republicans are in the majority, many Republican representatives are saying "hell no" to all expensive government programs. The cost of the five-year farm bills under discussion approaches $500 billion.

Bottom line: For a farm bill to pass the House, it "has to have Democratic support," Conaway says. "It has to be a bipartisan bill."

Now nutrition programs, notably food stamps, account for 80% of farm-bill expenditures. Nutrition programs, along with farm-conservation and rural-development programs, have traditionally been lumped together with commodity programs for political coalition-building reasons. The thought was urban Congressmen would be more hesitant to vote against farm subsidies if it meant also voting against food stamps.

Some House Republicans these days think it would be better to split up the farm bill and vote on the pieces separately. That would let them cast one vote in favor of farm programs and another vote to take a huge whack out of food stamps.

To these fellow Republicans Conaway has some CPA advice: Your best shot at reforming the food-stamp program is to leave it in the farm bill.

Sure, the Republican House might pass a massive reduction in food stamps if it considered the program separately. But the Democratic Senate never would, and the legislation would die. The only chance to get significant Democratic support for a smaller food-stamp program is to attach it to something many Democrats in both chambers favor: farm programs. The cuts wouldn't be anywhere near as deep, but there would be cuts.

The question, Conaway says, is whether this is a "theater moment," where Republicans make a big show of voting for big cuts that can't become law, or a "legislative moment." If it's a legislative moment, this CPA calculates, ag programs must be part of it.

(ES/)

© Copyright 2013 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.