I think before I go down and list some of the reform that is being considered in this current farm bill, I think we have to step back and look at what has transpired with the 2002 farm bill. The 2002 farm bill actually cost $25 billion less than what it was originally projected to cost. Let me repeat that. This is a Federal program that actually came in $25 billion less than what it was budgeted. I would ask my friend from Arizona; name me another mandatory program in the last 5 years that has come in under what was originally projected. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office projection for what farm policy will cost has imposed for the baseline going forward a $60 billion reduction over what was originally planned in 2002. The reason that that reduction is in place and the reason that this bill came in $25 billion less than what it was projected is because it was working the way it was supposed to.
Randy Neugebauer: “I think before I go down and list some of the reform that is being considered in this current farm bill, I think we have…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the effectiveness and cost of the 2002 farm bill during a debate on the current farm bill.
Share
More from Randy Neugebauer
If this is true that full-scale power plants operating now are not operating with CCS technology, how can you say that it has been adequately demonstrated?
EPA is attempting an unconstitutional trifecta, usurping the prerogatives of the states, Congress, and the federal courts all at once.
Inappropriately applying position limits to such funds could significantly reduce investor access to commodity markets, shrink market liquidity, impede price discovery, and destabilize the market.
The identification of nonbank systemically important firms is a serious exercise that has major implications for the competitiveness of U.S. firms and the stability of our financial markets.





