Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<div class="KonaFilter image-container"><div class="image"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/41284017@N08/6302435631/in/photolist-aAVCxi-7H4min-atCg2V-aAVBGD-8tx5VE-8yUNDv-8yUNEM-caeurb-caeXJC-caeYdL-bUcNMv-cbyZKs-cbz1qj-bUcQCB-caWBuQ-a9XYKU-ctQoeo-aAYmoh-bqzRxm-chMYXy-chMZ3q-chMZ23-chMYWo-chMYU1-chMYZq">USDA</a></div></div>
Congress passes a bill that gives bipartisanship a bad name
WHILE Congress was gridlocked it was easy to forget how ugly the smooth functioning of government can be. After a delay of two years, a reminder came on February 4th when the Senate passed the farm bill, a strange piece of legislation which costs nearly a trillion dollars. It mixes benefits that mostly go to the poor (food stamps) with agricultural subsidies that mostly go to the rich (crop subsidies for large farms). Given a blank slate, nobody with an interest in either alleviating poverty or improving farming would construct such a law. Yet here it is again.
The alignment of rural and urban interests, which dates from when the two bits of legislation were yoked together in the 1970s, had temporarily broken down, largely thanks to some House Republicans who wished to treat food stamps (which account for 80% of farm-bill spending) and agricultural subsidies separately. They were motivated by fiscal prudence and the belief that welfare discourages work.
However, the imminence of November's mid-term election persuaded enough Republicans to change their minds for the bill to pass. Some of those who failed to secure farm subsidies for their constituents might have been vulnerable. Another concern was the "dairy cliff": the failure to pass a new bill would have invoked a 1949 price-support law, written when the need to produce enough milk for thirsty infant boomers was paramount, under which the government would have been obliged to buy dairy products at about twice the going rate. Even people who had trouble understanding that shutting down the government before Christmas would be politically damaging quickly grasped that doubling the price of breakfast would.
The bill passed with some pretend reforms to the food-stamps programme designed to be spouted in election campaigns, such as ending the supposed scourge of millionaires receiving the benefit. Democrats complained about savage cuts to food stamps, which actually amounted to a mere 1% over ten years compared with an earlier version. And the big picture is that food-stamp spending has exploded since 2000. The number of people receiving the benefit rose from 17m in 2000 to 26m in 2007 and then, as the recession bit, to 48m in 2013--though it is projected to shrink again as growth revives.
Those who think this expansion is a bad thing point to a study by James Ziliak of the University of Kentucky, which found that only half the recent rise was due to the stodgy economy. The remainder was caused by demographic change and a determined effort to make more people eligible, something that irks Republicans who suspect Democrats of expanding welfare to buy votes. However, Mr Ziliak, who studies poverty, likes food stamps because they are counter-cyclical.
America is unusual among rich nations in trying to tackle deprivation by giving away free food, a quirk that dates from a moment during the second world war when the government wanted people to buy up agricultural surpluses. Food stamps have high administrative costs and are open to corruption: some beneficiaries buy big packs of fizzy drinks and sell them back to the store for cash, minus the middleman's cut. The federal government runs a confusing mess of 126 anti-poverty programmes, many of which overlap, but there is no serious talk of making the system simpler and more effective.
The part of the farm bill that actually deals with farming is even worse. Farmers are not the only people whose businesses have ups and downs; there is no reason why they should get special treatment. The new law shifts away from direct payments, by which farmers received cheques for doing nothing very much, towards an insurance model, where farmers get paid if crops fail or prices fall too far. This sounds reasonable, but the insurance schemes lock in high prices when farming is profitable, as it is at the moment: since 2008 the value of farm assets has increased by half, says the Congressional Research Service.
Crop insurance has two other defects. The first is that while the risk of crop failure or low prices is largely underwritten by taxpayers, the policies are provided by insurance companies, so, in effect, they enjoy a subsidy too. Calculations by Vincent Smith of Montana State University found that between 2005 and 2009 for every dollar in crop insurance that went to farmers, $1.44 went to insurance companies. The second problem is that crop-insurance payments are skewed towards wealthier farmers. The Environmental Working Group, which campaigns against wasteful farm spending, calculates that more than 10,000 policyholders received over $100,000 from crop-insurance subsidies in 2011. The new bill tries to cap the amount that any one farmer can receive; but if the weather is bad, it could lead to higher payouts than planned.
<h3><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image">The Economist</div></div></div></h3>
<h3>Sweet deals</h3>
Taken together, these subsidies distort behaviour and trade in unhelpful ways. They have created products that make no economic sense in the rest of the world, such as making sugar from corn. As a penalty for keeping cotton subsidies in place, the World Trade Organisation's rules require the American government to pay $147m a year to compensate farmers in Brazil. The new bill is unlikely to resolve that, either.
How could Congress write such a law? One answer can be found in the register of political donations. The ten members of the House, nine Republicans and one Democrat, who accepted most money from agriculture lobbyists took in an average of $225,000 in political contributions during 2013, according to Open Secrets, which tracks donations--almost as much as some farmers received in return.
Click <a href="https://subscriptions.economist.com/nwcd">here</a> to subscribe to The Economist

The Farm Bill: A Trillion In The Trough

<div class="image-container" style="width:750px"><div class="image">REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst</div></div>
It's hard to understate how much of a setback the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/joe-scarborough-farm-bill-john-boehner-vote-house-leadership-2013-6" target="_blank">farm bill's surprise failure</a> was for an already dysfunctional and divided House of Representatives. 
It showed that House leadership doesn't have a complete measure of the vote counts for even the most basic bills. It provided embarrassment all the way up to House Speaker <keyword id="51016" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="John-Boehner">John Boehner</keyword>, who took the unusual step of publicly supporting the bill and voting for it. And it signaled possible turbulence ahead for other larger and higher-profile bills, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/john-boehner-hastert-rule-immigration-reform-vote-house-2013-6" target="_blank">such as one on the issue of immigration</a>. 
The debacle brings up fresh new questions about major legislation passing through the House. If Boehner can't bring his conference together to move a farm bill through to a conference committee, what does it mean for immigration, <keyword id="648838" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="debt-ceiling">debt ceiling</keyword>, and government appropriations bills looming later this summer and fall?
The looming immigration fight, in particular, parallels the farm bill in many ways, though it could hypothetically have even more disastrous consequences for the Republican Party if it fails.
A similar version of a <keyword id="6355284" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="senate">Senate</keyword> farm bill that earned bipartisan support in a 66-27 vote failed to pass the House. Soon, an immigration bill that <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-oreilly-endorses-immigration-reform-fox-news-2013-6" target="_blank">now looks likely to earn more than 70 bipartisan Senate votes</a> could present Boehner with the same problem. 
"The two are very different issues. However, the farm bill highlights how complicated things are here in the House," one House GOP aide told Business Insider. 
From here, the farm bill faces one of two likely fates — it could either face extinction, or House leadership could put a modified version on the floor. It's unlikely, though, that a modified bill will come to the floor, considering that it would likely take more food-stamp cuts to earn Republican votes — something that would scare off Democrats. Most likely, a GOP aide said, a one-year extension will be passed, like both the House and Senate did last year.
A final version of any farm bill, even a one-year extension, will likely need a majority of Democrats to support its passage. The House last passed a farm bill extension as part of the bill to avert the fiscal cliff, which passed with a majority of Democrats supporting it. That overall bill required Boehner to break the Hastert Rule.
On immigration, Boehner will have an even narrower path to navigate. He has pledged to not allow a vote on a bill that does not garner majority support from Republicans. It's clear that breaking that promise, however, is perhaps the only way a bill would pass through the House to become law — even if the Senate bill is watered down to earn more Republicans' support. 
Doing so would likely mean Boehner would face a revolt from conservative members of his caucus. Already, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/dana-rohrabacher-john-boehner-speaker-92954.html" target="_blank">has warned him on his speakership</a>. 
One Democratic strategist, though, said Boehner might have to be willing to buck the majority of his caucus to do something he feels is necessary for the future of the party. The strategist pointed to comments from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) last weekend, who cautioned <keyword id="124780" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="immigration-reform">immigration reform</keyword> was necessary to <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/lindsey-graham-immigration-reform-70-votes-republicans-2013-6" target="_blank">keep the GOP from falling into a "demographic death spiral."</a>
"He might have to decide between the short-term imperative of keeping his speakership," the strategist said, "and the long-term imperative of the future of the Republican Party."

The Farm Bill Failure Has Disastrous Implications For Boehner

Congress passes a bill that gives bipartisanship a bad name
WHILE Congress was gridlocked it was easy to forget how ugly the smooth functioning of government can be. After a delay of two years, a reminder came on February 4th when the Senate passed the farm bill, a strange piece of legislation which costs nearly a trillion dollars. It mixes benefits that mostly go to the poor (food stamps) with agricultural subsidies that mostly go to the rich (crop subsidies for large farms). Given a blank slate, nobody with an interest in either alleviating poverty or improving farming would construct such a law. Yet here it is again.
The alignment of rural and urban interests, which dates from when the two bits of legislation were yoked together in the 1970s, had temporarily broken down, largely thanks to some House Republicans who wished to treat food stamps (which account for 80% of farm-bill spending) and agricultural subsidies separately. They were motivated by fiscal prudence and the belief that welfare discourages work.
However, the imminence of November's mid-term election persuaded enough Republicans to change their minds for the bill to pass. Some of those who failed to secure farm subsidies for their constituents might have been vulnerable. Another concern was the "dairy cliff": the failure to pass a new bill would have invoked a 1949 price-support law, written when the need to produce enough milk for thirsty infant boomers was paramount, under which the government would have been obliged to buy dairy products at about twice the going rate. Even people who had trouble understanding that shutting down the government before Christmas would be politically damaging quickly grasped that doubling the price of breakfast would.
The bill passed with some pretend reforms to the food-stamps programme designed to be spouted in election campaigns, such as ending the supposed scourge of millionaires receiving the benefit. Democrats complained about savage cuts to food stamps, which actually amounted to a mere 1% over ten years compared with an earlier version. And the big picture is that food-stamp spending has exploded since 2000. The number of people receiving the benefit rose from 17m in 2000 to 26m in 2007 and then, as the recession bit, to 48m in 2013--though it is projected to shrink again as growth revives.
Those who think this expansion is a bad thing point to a study by James Ziliak of the University of Kentucky, which found that only half the recent rise was due to the stodgy economy. The remainder was caused by demographic change and a determined effort to make more people eligible, something that irks Republicans who suspect Democrats of expanding welfare to buy votes. However, Mr Ziliak, who studies poverty, likes food stamps because they are counter-cyclical.
America is unusual among rich nations in trying to tackle deprivation by giving away free food, a quirk that dates from a moment during the second world war when the government wanted people to buy up agricultural surpluses. Food stamps have high administrative costs and are open to corruption: some beneficiaries buy big packs of fizzy drinks and sell them back to the store for cash, minus the middleman's cut. The federal government runs a confusing mess of 126 anti-poverty programmes, many of which overlap, but there is no serious talk of making the system simpler and more effective.
The part of the farm bill that actually deals with farming is even worse. Farmers are not the only people whose businesses have ups and downs; there is no reason why they should get special treatment. The new law shifts away from direct payments, by which farmers received cheques for doing nothing very much, towards an insurance model, where farmers get paid if crops fail or prices fall too far. This sounds reasonable, but the insurance schemes lock in high prices when farming is profitable, as it is at the moment: since 2008 the value of farm assets has increased by half, says the Congressional Research Service.
Crop insurance has two other defects. The first is that while the risk of crop failure or low prices is largely underwritten by taxpayers, the policies are provided by insurance companies, so, in effect, they enjoy a subsidy too. Calculations by Vincent Smith of Montana State University found that between 2005 and 2009 for every dollar in crop insurance that went to farmers, $1.44 went to insurance companies. The second problem is that crop-insurance payments are skewed towards wealthier farmers. The Environmental Working Group, which campaigns against wasteful farm spending, calculates that more than 10,000 policyholders received over $100,000 from crop-insurance subsidies in 2011. The new bill tries to cap the amount that any one farmer can receive; but if the weather is bad, it could lead to higher payouts than planned.
<h3>Sweet deals</h3>
Taken together, these subsidies distort behaviour and trade in unhelpful ways. They have created products that make no economic sense in the rest of the world, such as making sugar from corn. As a penalty for keeping cotton subsidies in place, the World Trade Organisation's rules require the American government to pay $147m a year to compensate farmers in Brazil. The new bill is unlikely to resolve that, either.
How could Congress write such a law? One answer can be found in the register of political donations. The ten members of the House, nine Republicans and one Democrat, who accepted most money from agriculture lobbyists took in an average of $225,000 in political contributions during 2013, according to Open Secrets, which tracks donations--almost as much as some farmers received in return.
Click <a href="https://subscriptions.economist.com/nwcd">here</a> to subscribe to The Economist

Why The Trillion Dollar Farm Bill Is Such A Disaster

Today, the House defeated a Republican farm bill proposal on a 195-234 vote. The bill included cuts to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, commonly known as <keyword id="730276" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="Food-stamps">food stamps</keyword>, that were not in a version that easily passed the Senate last week, 66-27.
<div class="image-container" style="width:800px"><div class="image">Business InsiderThe tally minutes before the vote closed.</div></div>
Opposition was bipartisan. Almost all Democrats voted no because they opposed the food stamp cuts. But 60 Republicans also voted against the bill, mostly because it didn't cut enough.
This is another demonstration of the impossible hand that Speaker John Boehner is playing. He wants his caucus to pass alternatives to Democratic policy proposals from the Senate. But the conservative wing of his caucus places high demands and is willing to vote against leadership-backed proposals.
If he doesn't meet their demands, he risks defeats like today's.
Conservative inflexibility leaves only two ways to get any legislation through the House. One is to design a bill that is so conservative it gets nearly all Republican support. Often, this means a bill that will be very unpopular with the public.
Another is to let the Democratic minority provide most of the votes, which means letting them dictate the contents of the bill. Boehner's use of Democrat-heavy to pass legislation on major policy matters—the fiscal cliff, the debt ceiling increase, and quite possibly immigration reform—has led to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi getting the nickname "Speaker Pelosi."
There has to be a farm bill. Reauthorizing <keyword id="1736870" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="Farm-Subsidies">farm subsidies</keyword> is (unfortunately) a political necessity, and so is reauthorizing food stamps. That leaves Boehner two options. He can come back with a bill that cuts food stamps more deeply. Or he can summon "Speaker Pelosi" to help him pass a bill that resembles the Senate version, which passed with widespread Democratic support and backing from nearly half of Republicans, too.
Either way, he's going to look weak.

In A Big Blow To Boehner, House Defeats Farm Bill

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image">REUTERS/Nir EliasAurora Cannabis and Canopy Growth are eyeing the lucrative US market.</div></div></div><ul class="summary-list"><li>An executive at Aurora Cannabis, one of the largest publicly traded <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/category/marijuana">marijuana</a> producers, says the 2018 Farm Bill provides a 'pathway' for entering the lucrative US market.</li><li>President Trump <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/farm-bill-legalizes-hemp-boom-marijuana-cbd-industry-2018-12">signed the Farm Bill into law on Thursday</a>. The bill legalizes hemp - a variety of the cannabis plant that contains only trace amounts of THC - by removing it from the Controlled Substances Act.</li><li>Canadian marijuana producers have long sought exposure to the US. Canopy Growth released a statement on Thursday saying it plans to enter the US market. </li></ul>Canadian cannabis behemoths are setting their sights on the US. An executive at Canadian marijuana producer Aurora Cannabis said on Thursday that the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/farm-bill-legalizes-hemp-boom-marijuana-cbd-industry-2018-12">recently signed Farm Bill</a>, which legalizes hemp, provides a "pathway" to enter the lucrative US market."We've long envisioned the future and the enormous value of the US market," Cam Battley, Aurora's Chief Corporate Officer told Business Insider in an interview. "There's now a pathway for a rational approach and expansion."Read more:<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/cannabis-companies-competing-for-market-share-2018-11"> 'My lips are wet, my mouth is watering to get a piece of that': A war is brewing between US and Canadian marijuana companies to claim a $75 billion market</a>The key, said Battley, is whether the Toronto Stock Exchange and The New York Stock Exchange - where Aurora is listed - would approve a US expansion.Battley added that Aurora has already made moves to get exposure to the US market through Australis Capital, an independent US-based company spun out of Aurora.Australis is listed on the Canadian Securities Exchange which allows marijuana companies with US operations to list. <div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image">Skye Gould/Business Insider</div></div></div><h2>'My lips are wet, my mouth is watering to get a piece of that'</h2>On Aurora's earnings call in November, Battley said Aurora <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/cannabis-companies-competing-for-market-share-2018-11">would be ready to move into the US as soon as federal laws around cannabis changed</a>."My lips are wet, my mouth is watering to get a piece of that," said Battley. President Trump signed the 2018 Farm Bill into law on Thursday afternoon. The bill legalized hemp - <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-hemp-different-from-weed-2018-3">a variety of the cannabis plant that doesn't contain THC</a>, the psychoactive compound that gets you high - by removing it from the Controlled Substances Act.Though the legal status of CBD, an active compound in the cannabis plant, is hazy, some in the industry say the Farm Bill provides a framework to distribute CBD-infused products in the US - if the CBD is derived from hemp. Canopy Growth, another Canadian marijuana producer, on Thursday released a statement that his company would "participate in the American market," following the Farm Bill's signing.<ul class="read-more-links"><li>Read more:</li><li><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/rbc-capital-markets-will-start-doing-marijuana-deals-head-says-2018-12" data-read-more-link="" data-e2e-name="read-more-link">One of Canada's largest investment banks wants a piece of the $194 billion marijuana industry</a></li><li><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/farm-bill-legalizes-hemp-boom-marijuana-cbd-industry-2018-12" data-read-more-link="" data-e2e-name="read-more-link">Trump just signed a law that could spark a boom for the $1 billion marijuana-linked CBD industry</a></li><li><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/marijuana-stocks-andrew-left-citron-bullish-on-aphria-despite-short-report-2018-12" data-read-more-link="" data-e2e-name="read-more-link">Famous short seller Andrew Left says the marijuana producer that was recently hit by short sellers is primed to be taken over by Diageo</a></li><li><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/cannabis-companies-competing-for-market-share-2018-11" data-read-more-link="" data-e2e-name="read-more-link">'My lips are wet, my mouth is watering to get a piece of that': A war is brewing between US and Canadian marijuana companies to claim a $75 billion market</a></li></ul> <div class="margin-top"> <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/why-its-better-to-pay-for-your-entire-holiday-upfront-pain-paying-dan-ariely-2018-2">Paying for your entire holiday upfront will cause you less 'pain,' according to a behavioral scientist</a></h3> <div> </div> </div>

One of the largest publicly traded marijuana companies says the Farm Bill provides a 'pathway' for entering the lucrative US market

The Washington Post's Greg Sargent reports that <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/12/13/dems-hatch-new-strategy-to-pressure-gop-on-unemployment-insurance/">Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is organizing Democrats to vote against any farm bill that does not also include an extension of emergency unemployment benefits</a>.
Van Hollen, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee and a former chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is considered an influential member of the caucus.
He says the farm bill, which generally enjoys bipartisan support but is especially important to Republicans representing rural districts, provides Democrats' next opportunity to force the Republican Party's hand on <keyword id="6358907" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="unemployment">unemployment</keyword>.
House and Senate negotiators are currently trying to reconcile each side's version of the bill, which expires on January 1. Yesterday, the House passed a one month extension to give negotiators more time time to work out a deal. The Senate will take it up next week. 
The farm bill is mainly made up of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) and <keyword id="1736870" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="Farm-Subsidies">farm subsidies</keyword>. If it lapses, the law reverts back to a version passed in 1949. That would send milk prices soaring to $8 per gallon. It would also cause an interruption in various farm programs, but SNAP benefits would continue to be issued.
The House failed to pass a comprehensive farm bill this summer, instead passing one that dealt with farm programs and a separate one for SNAP that cut benefits by $40 billion over 10 years. The comprehensive Senate bill includes $4 billion in SNAP cuts. The legislation that comes out of conference will include fewer cuts than many House Republicans will accept, forcing House Speaker John Boehner to need Democratic votes to pass the final bill. This is where Van Hollen sees an opportunity for House Democrats.
"Under no circumstances should we support the farm bill unless Republicans agree to use the savings from it to extend unemployment insurance," he told Sargent.
"I'm confident that the House Democratic leadership will look for every opportunity to extend unemployment insurance, helping struggling families and the economy. The farm bill reauthorization may be the first such opportunity."
Shortly after Christmas, the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program expires and 1.3 million Americans will lose their jobless benefits. The program extends the length of time that unemployed workers could collect benefits from the standard 26 weeks to as long as 73 weeks, though the maximum duration of benefits varies by state.
In recent weeks, Democrats have pushed hard for another extension of the EUC. Sen. Patty Murray bargained with Rep. Paul Ryan last weekend about including it in their budget, but ultimately lost out. Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that he will push for an extension after New Years.

Here's One Top Democrat's Plan To Win An Extension Of Unemployment Benefits

<div class="image-container float_right"><div class="image">AP<keyword id="189788" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="Heritage-Foundation">Heritage Foundation</keyword> President Jim DeMint</div></div>Even conservative House <keyword id="66537" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="Republicans">Republicans</keyword> have finally had it with the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank that has aggressively pushed Republican congressmen to the right.
National Journal <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/republican-lawmakers-retaliate-against-heritage-foundation-20130828">reports</a> that the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative House members with deep ties to Heritage, has banned Heritage employees from its meetings. They're mad that Heritage tried to kill a farm subsidy bill that Republican House members very much wanted to pass back in July.
I'm no fan of Heritage. But here's what's maddening about this fight: Heritage is not only right about the farm subsidy issue, they're advocating a consensus view among policy experts all across the political spectrum.
In 2011, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation commissioned long-term federal budget proposals from six think tanks spread across the political spectrum, from Heritage on the right end to the Economic Policy Institute on the left. The proposals diverged widely in most areas, from taxes to entitlements to defense. One of the <a href="http://pgpf.org/sites/default/files/sitecore/media%20library/PGPF/Media/PDF/2011/FiscalSummit_2011/2011%20Fiscal%20Summit%20Book.pdf">few areas of agreement</a> among all six proposals was that <keyword id="1736870" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="Farm-Subsidies">farm subsidies</keyword> should be reformed and reduced.
Yet the farm bill that passed the Republican-held House this summer barely changes farm subsidy programs. It cuts direct payments to farmers, but offsets much of that cut by increasing the generosity of crop insurance, another mechanism of subsidizing agriculture.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates net effect of the House plan would be about a 6% cut in farm subsidy programs. (That's actually a slightly smaller cut than Senate Democrats want, and much smaller than President Obama has proposed.) But that estimate assumes that crop prices stay high, like they are today. As the Mercatus Center <a href="http://mercatus.org/publication/bloated-farm-subsidies-will-2013-farm-bill-really-cut-fat">notes</a>, if prices fall back toward their long-run averages, the House bill will actually make farm subsidies more generous.
When the House tried in July to pass a comprehensive farm bill including a reauthorization of the food stamp program, 62 House Republicans rebelled because the cuts weren't deep enough. (The Republican plan included about a 3% cut in food stamps along with the 6% cut in farm subsidies). Because most Democrats voted against the bill on the grounds that it cut too much from food stamps, it failed.
Then, House Republicans separated the bills and passed a farm subsidies-only bill with just 12 Republican defections. Heritage infuriated House Conservatives by issuing a "key vote" against the bill, arguing that it did not align with Heritage's (perfectly reasonable) <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/06/six-reforms-for-the-house-farm-bill">principles</a> for reforming and reducing farm subsidies.
In other words, about a third of the House GOP caucus is so committed to cutting food aid to poor people that they wouldn't vote for a bill with only modest cuts to that, even though their leadership really wanted them to. But 94% of House Republicans were willing to vote for a bill that maintains status-quo corporate welfare to farmers, and they're furious that meddling outsiders tried to stop them.
Here's what's happening. House Republicans do not actually care about free markets or cutting government. They care about pleasing their electoral constituencies and getting re-elected. Old people tend to vote Republican, which is why House Republicans have built their last two campaigns around attacking President Obama for cutting Medicare. Almost all rural areas are represented by Republicans, which is why Republicans don't want to cut farm subsidies.
That is, the RSC's problem with Heritage isn't that it's trying to push the GOP too far to the right to be competitive in elections. Their problem with Heritage is that they're interfering with the GOP's effort to put special-interest <keyword id="6358883" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="Politics">politics</keyword> ahead of conservative principles.
Internal critics of the Republican party are trying to push it in a variety of directions. Tea Partiers like the people at Heritage want the party to cut taxes and spending much more aggressively. Libertarian populists want to refocus around an anti-corporate welfare message. Squishy "reformists" like me want to make peace with progressive taxation and the welfare state while cutting regulation.
One thing all those camps can agree on is that farm subsidies should be slashed. If that's the issue on which the House GOP is most inclined to defend existing spending and smack down outside critics, that bodes very poorly for any effort to make the GOP more competitive and more relevant.

You Searched For "farm bills" and got 7 results

The Farm Bill: A Trillion In The Trough

The Economist

The Farm Bill Failure Has Disastrous Implications For Boehner

Brett LoGiurato

Why The Trillion Dollar Farm Bill Is Such A Disaster

Business Insider

In A Big Blow To Boehner, House Defeats Farm Bill

Josh Barro

One of the largest publicly traded marijuana companies says the Farm Bill provides a 'pathway' for entering the lucrative US market

Jeremy Berke

Here's One Top Democrat's Plan To Win An Extension Of Unemployment Benefits

Danny Vinik

New Heritage Foundation Fight Shows Everything That's Wrong With The GOP

Josh Barro

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides