Downsizing Blog
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) spends more than $2 billion a year on three programs that provide food aid to poor countries, which aim to alleviate hunger and support development. The programs have noble goals, but they suffer from serious practical flaws.
With the congressional debate over a new farm bill on the horizon, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) held a conference today to examine farm policies. The speakers included both environmentalists and fiscal conservatives who share views that some farm programs are anti‐green and benefit wealthy landowners who do not need the money. The EWG has been a leader in calling for farm subsidy reform.
Congress is scheduled to consider a major farm bill this year, which will reauthorize many U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs, including farm subsidies and food stamps. The legislation could cost $150 billion a year and so presents an opportunity to find budget savings and reduce the flood of red ink in Washington.
The bipartisan debt‐ceiling deal passed in June reflected a new congressional focus on spending restraint. Congress should extend the restraint when it considers a major farm bill this fall. Cutting farm subsidies is a good way to tackle wasteful spending and reduce budget deficits.
Which farm programs should Congress cut?
Fitch Ratings, one of three major credit rating agencies, downgraded the U.S. debt from AAA (the highest possible rating) to AA+ yesterday, explaining:
“The rating downgrade of the United States reflects the expected fiscal deterioration over the next three years, a high and growing general government debt burden, and the erosion of governance…”
Federal debt and interest costs are headed toward levels never seen in our nation’s history.
Both the Reagan and Trump administrations proposed eliminating the EDA. House Republicans should take another shot at reform.
Congress is considering the Biden‐McCarthy debt‐reduction deal. The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 would reduce deficits by $1.5 trillion over the coming decade. The reduction would be a start at righting the federal government’s fiscal ship, but just a small start.
Here at Cato we’ve written many times about the record of big infrastructure projects and “megaprojects”:
In 1990, a Department of Transportation researcher named Don Pickrell looked at ten rail transit projects completed in the 1980s and found that their construction costs averaged 62 percent more than originally projected, their operating costs were 130 percent more, and their ridership was 47 percent less than projected.
Pages
Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by
WeebPal.
