No Hope for Farm Bill Extension

August 1, 2012 10:55 AM
 

Early this week, our friends at AgDay reported the possibility of a one-year extension of the 2008 farm bill. Proposed to the House by a group Republican lawmakers, the extension would have given congress more time to come to agreement on the bill. 

[Watch for more information]

Because they felt they didn't have enough votes to get the extension passed, the same group of lawmakers pulled the bill from the docket just minutes before it was to be brought before the House Rules Committee in anticipation of a floor vote today according to Politico.

Instead of the extension, Republican representatives now favor a $383 million disaster aid package that will come before the House tomorrow. If passed it will restore indemnity and forage programs for livestock producers. It also offers some help to crop farmers. Many believe this is an effort for Farm State representatives want something helpful to offer their constiuants.

"My priority remains to get a five-year farm bill on the books and put those policies in place," says House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.). "But the most pressing business before us is to provide disaster assistance to those producers impacted by the drought conditions who are currently exposed." 

Watch this AgDay EXCLUSIVE interview with Chairman Lucas.

Back to news

Comments

 

Rate this News Article:

Spell Check

Anonymous
8/1/2012 05:11 PM
 

  Personally, since they wouldn't extend the Farm Bill for a year, I hope they just abandon it. Then, if sanity returns to DC after the election, maybe the Farm Bill will really be about farming and not about SNAP, WIC, Tree PReservation, and other programs that have nothing to do with farming. Ethanol is our lifeline in rural America. Killing that industry would bankrupt hundreds of ethanol plants and farmer-investors. It would decimate small towns that have nothing else. The farmers have presold much of their crops to these plants and must either deliver or buy back the corn. If the plants go under it is even harder financially for the farmers.

 
 
Anonymous
8/1/2012 09:23 PM
 

  Gosh fellas, I heard a gentleman at work whose dad is a farmer telling of how his dad purchased a new combine last year with cash. The cost? Between $300,000 to $400,000. My guess is he did not purchase the combine out of necessity but merely for a tax write-off. Do you think maybe he could have saved some of that cash for bad times like I used to do when I was farming? And I farmed for 23 years and did quite well, always had cash in my pocket and now own a good amount of land for my retirement fund. I empathize with farmers now but I do not sympathize with them. We all knew this would happen sooner or later, the experts should have given better advice. But then the "experts" do not work for their constituents. They work for huge conglomerate chemical and seed companies. It is always good to be optimistic but it is better to have a large measure of wisdom along with it. I just hope there are no farmers "too big to fail" in this country and there are a good number of LARGE farms. Most farmers are conservatives so lets see if they turn down a government bail out...or will they want help much like a person who gets sick through no fault of their own but at the same time does not have the resources to pay for care. I guess we are all "part of the problem" when it comes to government. And if some farmers pre-sold much of their crops then they must have had a built in profit and were satisfied with the price. That's how the market works. It is much more prudent and wise to market grain in structured segments than to try to sell everything at the "top" of the market. Most of the time the average price will be in the upper 20-30% of the price range. Marketing in this disciplinaryfashion gives "more lives" to the process.

 
 
Close