Both of these news articles were written about the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 or most commonly known as the Farm Bill. Every five years the Farm Bill is renewed with new provisions and policies. On Tuesday the Senate passed the bill with a 68-32 bipartisan vote. Major criteria listed in the Farm Bill include new regulations for subsidies farmers receive, cuts in food stamp programs, and a new office in the Agriculture Department. Previously, most farmers were given subsidies regardless of whether or not they grew crops. Although the House pushed for a five percent cut in food stamp programs, the final bill passed by the Senate compromised to lower the cuts to just one percent. Another new implication the bill proposed is the creation of a new office in the Agriculture Department. Cat fish would no longer be inspected by the FDA but rather by this new office due to the lack of resources needed to properly inspect the fish. Advocates for the bill said it will save us millions in the long run as well as the opportunity for big payoffs. However, opponents said the bill's saving plan could disappear if the weather or economy doesn't cooperate.
The passage of this bill by the Senate is directly related to the content we study in this class. It addresses political beliefs and the idea of political parties. In addition it gives insight into one of the institutions of the national government (Senate). Personally there are certain parts of the Farm Bill I enjoy and others that I don't. I agree with the subsidy regulation. If farmers are having a profitable year and making good money then there is no need to for the government to give the farmers more money. The aid that the government will give the farmers through the Farm Bill kicks in only when the farmers experience loss or a drop in prices. Furthermore, I agree with the cuts made to food stamp programs. Don't get me wrong I enjoy helping others but to a certain extent. The government has been helping people with low incomes through food stamps too much and it was a good decision to make those cuts. On the contrary, the new office in the Agriculture Department is a bit superfluous. Why spend $20 million on a whole new office instead of just equipping the FDA with the necessary resources.
I totally agree with your position. I think we should only help those who really need it. With the new subsidies plan and food stamp cuts we can start to ween people off of relying on the government to get them through life. I want to help people, but some people abuse the help that they are given by our government. I am glad that there is act that will try to counteract this.
ReplyDelete