The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal Media. The opinions expressed below are the author's own.
The AgriTalk broadcast is done for today, but the conversation continues. AgriTalk host Mike Adams shares his thoughts and opinions on the news of the week and invites your feedback.
Passage of the House Farm Bill minus a nutrition title was both historic and controversial. While an important step the process of course is far from complete. While some choose to criticize the move others see it as a necessary means to a hoped for end. Count me in the latter category. I know I've been in the minority on this (although I seem to have more company now) but after two failures it seemed like a chance worth taking. At least now there is a bill to send to conference committee where hopefully improvements will be made. Despite conventional thinking to the contrary, the nutrition title was not the ticket to passage it had been in the past. Also the threat of returning to so called permanent law has proven to be no deterrent at all to inaction. Some are already saying this bill is not really a farm bill. I disagree! The bill that passed the Senate was not really a farm bill but rather a nutrition bill with agriculture's 20% attached. Ironically those in the House who wanted bigger cuts in nutrition spending should have voted for the bill that came out of the House ag committee. The Senate's 4 billion in nutrition cuts would seem closer now to reality than the House ag committee's 20 billion. Of course that has been a big part of the problem in this whole process. Too many parties (agriculture included) took an all or nothing position. It's time for people to stop working on defeating the bill and work to get it passed. The House, though not in a conventional manner, took a step in that direction. Hopefully others will now do something unconventional. Work together to get a final bill passed!
No comments have been posted to this Blog Post