You Haven't Heard The Last Of The Pork Bill They Call A Farm Bill

You probably read that the GOP failed to pass their Farm Bill last week. Even though every Democrat voted against it, the GOP should have been able to pass it with just their own members. But Ryan and his team have lost control and the extremists from the Freedom Caucus decided to hold the bill ransom to get a floor vote of their anti-immigrant vote. Ryan, now a lame dog with no leverage, had no choice but to make a deal to allow a vote of the far right immigration bill a couple days before the newly rescheduled Farm Bill (June 22).

Writing for TruthDig, Teodrose Fikre, reports that the country has gone from being a nation of laws to "a franchise of the global aristocracy." And he points right to the Farm Bill as a perfect example of how "America has been indentured by multinational corporations. As both parties lavish fortunes upon Wall Street, they turn around and gift the rest of us austerity."

Like all other legislation that gets enacted by our ever-cagey Congress and signed into law by our duplicitous presidents, the 2018 farm bill is a colossal measure that will impact almost every American-- even though the public has almost zero say in the matter. The omnibus package, which is another way of saying wish list for lobbyists, encompasses everything from food production to food distribution, land conservation, social safety net programs like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and goes as far as redefining who is considered a family member. The revolutionaries of 1776 thought they had it rough with Big Brother telling them how to lead their lives, but the British monarchs had nothing on the American oligarchy.

In all, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 is estimated to cost $421.5 billion over a five-year window. That’s before the Senate gets its dibs and adds to the final tab. While the ever-pliant corporate media was busy going haywire over Donald Trump’s latest buffoonery and gaga over the royal nonsense in Windsor, nepotists in our nation’s capital have been busy greasing the wheels for their benefactors while pinching pennies on the poor and the middle class. Republicans love to echo Jesus on social media and morph into a cabal of pharisees during congressional sessions. This is not to praise Democrats. They spent eight years making it rain helicopter money on Wall Street. Both parties’ primary purpose is to transfer wealth from the many to the gentry.

Even the mildest attempts to rein in the excesses that are shoveled to the corporate oligarchy are swiftly derailed. On Thursday, a sensible measure that would have put restrictions on farm subsidies was voted down [137-278]. While social welfare programs are being decimated, corporate welfare is alive and well. Socialism is only bad when it applies to the people. Communism is adored when it benefits Wall Street. The U.S. government runs a Ponzi scheme. Within the sugar industry alone, subsidies transfer anywhere from $2.4 billion to $4 billion from consumers into the coffers of behemoth conglomerations like American Sugar Refining Group and agricultural giants like Monsanto.

Instead of investing in public infrastructure and tending to the least among us, politicians on both sides of the aisle would rather throw good money after bad by artificially inflating the price of sugar to appease their donor-patrons. These types of corrupt dealings have innumerable repercussions. The cost of goods keep going up and sugar products are aggressively marketed to keep demand for sugar high, while making it nearly impossible for small and family-owned farms to compete with market leaders.

Ultimately, healthier alternatives are driven out of the marketplace. Companies that offer more nutritious products struggle to remain going concerns and keep up with the competitive advantages enjoyed by junk food peddlers and their suppliers. The net result is a society that is getting emaciated financially to sustain corporations-- and being rewarded with an obesity crisis for our unwitting complicity. Our political leaders are incentivizing greed and being paid handsomely by sugar and farm lobbyists for their obsequiousness.

This farm bill contains so many deleterious provisions that a book would be needed to offer context for the endless ways Congress keeps choosing moneyed interests over the public good. Where Democrats are coy about the ways they bolster corporations, Republicans dispense with the chicanery and have no problem advertising their servility to Wall Street. Do you think increased pesticide use, more incidents like Flint’s poisoned pipes and less protection for endangered species is a good thing? If so, you will love this farm bill, which does everything possible to loosen the destructive nature of crony capitalism while restricting the options of the working class and poor to obtain public assistance.

...If we are to reclaim our country and demand a government that works for us, we must understand that all of us-- irrespective of our differences—are being fleeced by a bipartisan cabal of corporate courtiers in our nation’s capital. Do not let the refrains of “blue waves” or the chants of “make America great again” deceive you. Both parties are in on this ongoing corporate boondoggle. The farm bill collapsed because the Freedom Caucus demanded more stringent measures on border controls while others demanded yet more cuts from social programs. Republicans are negotiating among themselves to figure out who can be the biggest a-holes.

Tom McClintock (R-CA) isn't exactly mainstream. He's thought of a far right member of Congress but, in some ways, he sounded a lot like Fikre on this one. "Farm subsidies-- essentially taking money from taxpayers to inflate the price of their groceries-- was never a good idea," he wrote.  "They are the poster children of corporate welfare.  After all, the vast proportion of them go to large corporations-- not small family farms. Sixty percent of American farms get no subsidies at all-- contradicting the claim that somehow American agriculture couldn’t exist without them."  

We spend $20 billion a year subsidizing 40 percent of our farms. That’s about $160 a year out of the direct taxes of an average family in America.  That doesn’t include the cost to consumers from higher prices.  The sugar program alone cost consumers $3.7 billion in higher sugar prices-- adding nearly $30 more to their grocery bills.

Subsidies hurt taxpayers. They hurt consumers. And they even hurt farmers in the long run.

 Prices are signals sent by consumers over what they want to buy and the amount they’re willing to pay. If left alone, they tell producers what consumers want more of and what they want less of. If consumers want less soybeans and sugar and more wheat and cabbage, prices for soybeans and sugar decline and prices for wheat and cabbage increase. Producers respond by planting less soybeans and sugarcane and more wheat and cabbage.

Unless, of course, government distorts those price signals through subsidies. Producers end up planting more of what consumers don’t want and less of what they do. Thus, producers are artificially induced to perform below their potential productivity.

Many of the subsidies today are in the form of crop insurance. Farmers get heavily subsidized insurance to guarantee them profits for their products. Who pays the subsidies? Taxpayers.

 There are no good arguments for continuing these subsidies. Most farmers don’t get them right now. Those who do tend to be major corporations and not family farmers.

  ...It is long past time to debunk that myth in our own country, restore to consumers the power to command what producers grow and restore to producers the accurate price signals they need to maximize their productivity in a free and undistorted market.

GOP Farm Bill Failed For Lots Of Reasons, But Few Have Anything To Do With Agriculture

Yesterday, ever single Democrat-- even the Blue Dogs-- voted against the GOP Farm Bill, Michael Conaway's Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018. The bill failed, H.R. 2, 198-213 because 30 Republicans voted against it, a weird combination of Freedom Caucus extremists and mainstream conservatives who didn't want to see food stamps cut 5 months before an election. Oddly, even Paul Ryan voted against it! (Western Wisconsin dairy farmers are going bankrupt at an unprecedented rate-- and so are suicides among family farmers. As usual, Ryan's top priority-- only priority-- was tougher work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

The two biggest dairy counties in Wisconsin are Clark and Fond du Lac, where Trump beat Hillary, respectively, 63.8% to 31.2% and 60.8% to 34.0%. From the Wisconsin State Farmer: "As the dairy industry struggles with low prices in the face of a long-mounting milk glut, more farmers are finding that their woes are escalating. Over the spring of 2017, a pricing dispute with Canada, Wisconsin's large export market, along with ongoing fears of additional trade issues, have helped crystallize what is turning out to be a serious crisis in dairyland... The fallout from the dairy industry's woes has included a rise in farmer suicides. It's contributing to a growing public health crisis, as farmers overall are aging and suicide is among the leading causes of death for middle-aged men."

Wisconsin Republicans Sean Duffy, Glenn Grothman, Jim Sensenbrenner, and Mike Gallagher all voted for a farm bill that would make life worse for Wisconsin farmers.

In the end, the bill was tanked by far right extremists Mark Meadows (R-NC), Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Scott Perry (R-PA) who were bitching about the direction an immigration bill is moving which isn't radical enough for them. But more mainstream Republicans say the tactic will backfire on the neo-fascists in the caucus.

The bill’s failure, some Republicans predicted, will cause a backlash against the Freedom Caucus agitators by compelling more GOP lawmakers to endorse a procedural gambit, known as a discharge petition, that would force floor votes on four separate DACA bills against the wishes of Republican leaders.

The Freedom Caucus opposes the discharge petition, and have sought ways to sink it.

Denham said their actions on Friday will instead make his lobbying effort easier.

“Given the breaking of the agreement that was made today, you’re going to see more Republicans that are frustrated and angry enough to sign on to something that they’ve never signed on to before,” Denham said after the farm bill failed.

Rep. Dennis Ross (R-FL), a senior member of the GOP whip team, agreed.

He said Republican leaders had, in fact, delivered a warning to recalcitrant lawmakers in the lead up to Friday’s vote: Oppose the farm bill, they said, and the discharge petition will gain steam.

“Don’t be surprised if there’s a discharge petition that comes out as a result of this, because I think there are a lot of members on my side of the aisle concerned that they are not relevant anymore,” a visibly frustrated Ross said after the vote.

“I think you’re going to see some members on the Republican side who are more inclined to do a discharge petition in order to at least get something done.”

...Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL), who sponsored the discharge petition that would force votes on Denham’s resolution, said two Republicans approached him on Thursday to say they’re ready to endorse the petition, though he did not know when they would do so.

At least two House Democrats are withholding their support for the discharge petition, citing concerns that the effort will lead to new construction of President Trump’s border wall.

Curbelo said he’s hoping those Democratic holdouts will change course and sign the petition, but predicted their support ultimately won’t be necessary to reach the 218 mark.

“We’re not too worried about that because we think we’ll get more than 25 [Republicans],” Curbelo said.

The immigration and agriculture issues have become entwined in recent weeks, after the leaders of the Freedom Caucus-- notably Reps. Mark Meadows (R-NC) and Jim Jordan (R-OH)-- threatened to withhold their support for the farm bill unless Ryan solidified a vote on a conservative immigration proposal, sponsored by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA).

Although the Goodlatte bill lacks the support to pass the House, conservatives want an opportunity to vote on it, perhaps with amendments. The legislation adopts a hardline approach to immigration reform, boosting interior enforcement and reducing even legal immigration.

“We need to figure out whether we can [pass] Goodlatte as is, or amend it,” Meadows said Thursday. “If that doesn’t work than we know that we have to go with some other option.”

The two groups huddled Thursday night in Ryan’s office in the Capitol, where GOP leaders offered the conservatives a vote on the Goodlatte bill in June. The offer didn’t satisfy some members of the group, however, who wanted to vote on the immigration bill before moving to the agriculture package.

“It was not fully clear,” Meadows said of the leadership offer.

That argument hasn’t appeased Denham, who said he’s agitated with fellow Republicans who “asked for a concession, got the concession, and then took down [the farm bill] anyways.”

“They had asked for a date certain [to consider the Goodlatte bill], and they gave a date certain... It was [a deal] good enough until about 10 minutes before the vote,” Denham said, adding that the agreement is now off.

“If you break an agreement I assume you no longer get what you agreed to. They had gotten their vote, that they had asked for, and we gave them a date. Now they’ve changed their minds. So I would expect that agreement to be null and void, at this point.”

And, obviously, trouble for farmers isn't just in Wisconsin. Listen to the NPR piece about Iowa farmers below. And the Trump economy isn't just moving along and bringing catastrophe for farmers either. Mortgage interest rates rose to their highest in 7 years... and headed up. It had to happen. Without even understanding it at all, Trump has been basking in the glow of Obama's economic achievements... while tearing them apart. That's coming back to bite him in his fat sagging ass-- and to bite the rest of us too, as the regime's economic policies start kicking in. The first victims will be people who drive cars-- as the Trumpanzee foreign policy drives up gas prices-- and people who want to buy homes... and cars.

How Arkansas Extremist Tom Cotton Pissed Off Top Chef Tom Colicchio

With Steve Israel's policy of never targeting GOP leaders, policy makers and committee chairman keeping the DCCC out of the MN-02 race that pits progressive Mike Obermueller against reactionary incumbent John Kline-- chair of the powerful and destructive House Committee of Education and the Workforce-- Blue America was over the moon that Bill Maher has stepped into the breach. Maher is bashing Kline up but good and bringing his repulsive anti-family record to the attention of voters in southeast Minnesota. This was a Maher tweet from early Thursday morning:

Blue America is working the positive side of the street (for a change), talking about why Obermueller is a better candidate than Kline from a policy perspective and what a natural district MN-02 would be to flip, despite Steve Israel's intent on protecting Kline again. (Obama won the district against McCain by 10,000 votes and beat Romney in a squeaker by around 300 votes!) Al Franken is on the ballot this year and he's substantially ahead of disreputable bankster/GOP crackpot Mike McFadden who is struggling in the polls to get to 40%. (You can help Obermueller's grassroots campaign here.)

And, of course, Maher isn't the only celebrity out talking sense about midterm races this cycle. Up top is an excellent segment from Chris Hayes' Wednesday night show featuring Top Chef Tom Colicchio. TV viewers may know him as the positive, no-nonsense head judge on every season of Bravo's Top Chef, and foodies know him as the founder and executive chef of the Gramercy Tavern (NYC) and founder of Craft (NYC, L.A., Dallas, Las Vegas, San Francisco) and the winner of 5 James Beard awards. But he's also been one of the most stalwart political fighters for healthy and sustainable food policies in America. Wednesday night he was on with Hayes explaining why Tom Cotten is a terrible choice for the Arkansas Senate seat currently held by Mark Pryor. It made me wonder if other celebrity chefs are politically active.

I would bet that a dick like Robert Irvine is a Republican but he's a Brit so there's no way to be sure. He did make a bunch of bogus claims that you would generally expect from conservatives, not normal people-- being a Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, receiving a Scottish castle from the Queen, being a White House chef and making Princess Di's wedding cake, all false-- and cheating investors out of their money, another very right-wing move. The one actual Republican among the celebrity chefs I could find was Texas meat cooker Tim Love. I wouldn't eat in a restaurant associated with him anyone-- nor with Irvine. Celebrity chefs who have been supportive of Democrats, besides Colicchio, include Alice Waters, Rachel Ray, Elizabeth Falkner, Bobby Flay, Marcus Samuelsson, Mario Batali, Jean-Georges Vongerichten (a major Obama bundler) and Daniel Boulud.

Remember, the best chance the Democrats have to keep conservative Mark Pryor in and neo-fascist closet case Tom Cotton out seems to rest with making Arkansas voters wonder why the rest of their congressional delegation-- 4 Republicans and Pryor-- voted for the Farm Bill while Cotton joined extreme right-wing ideologues from other states to oppose it. So who was right, voters are supposed to wonder, Senators Boozman and Pryor and Congressmen Womack, Griffin and Crawford… or a Tom Cotton who's happy to see taxpayer money flow into the coffers of his own family farm while voting no on a Farm Bill that everyone else in Arkansas sees as a reasonable compromise?

The most recent legitimate poll, from Suffolk University last week, shows Pryor leading 45-43%., even though 37.4% of respondents admitted their most trusted source of news is Fox. The polling analysis memo offered an interesting word association question for Cotton in which the top scoring words were "dishonest," "untrustworthy," "crook" and "dislike him." They didn't test for closet case or gay. Pryor's #1 word association, by far, was "like him."

This was Colicchio's OpEd for Food Policy Action:

The food that feeds our families and supports our agriculture industry is affected every day by the decisions that elected officials make in Washington. Members of Congress regularly vote on policies that affect the quality, availability, and sustainability of our food supply. And yet, there has been very little attention to bringing transparency and accountability to that discussion.

As someone who has spent his life in the food business, I firmly believe that when citizens enter the voting booth, they need to be as informed about food policy as they are about a candidate’s views on job creation, foreign policy, and social issues. Unfortunately, in Arkansas right now, we have a classic example of what’s wrong with the political discourse around food in this country.

U.S. Rep. Tom Cotton, who is running for Senate, released a campaign ad that misleads voters and misconstrues the facts about the Farm Bill. The Farm Bill is a critically important law that shapes food production, determines nutrition assistance, and supports farmers, among other things. Sadly, Rep. Cotton’s ad wrongfully accuses President Obama of “hijacking the farm bill and turning it into a food stamp bill,” which simply isn’t true.

But don’t take my word for it. the Washington Post called the ad’s claims “invented history,” and the non-partisan fact-checker Politifact gave the dubious ad its “Pants On Fire” rating, which is the equivalent of an “F” on a high school report card. The truth is, SNAP (a.k.a. food stamps) first became a part of the Farm Bill during the Great Depression, and has been included in every Farm Bill that has become law since 1973. It has been supported by Members from both sides of the aisle for decades.

Today’s voters deserve better. We’ll never be able to improve food policies in this country if our leaders distort and distract instead of discuss and debate. Voters need information, which is why I co-founded Food Policy Action, a non-partisan organization dedicated to bringing light and accountability to the food debate.

Every year, Food Policy Action puts together a Legislative Scorecard to help voters get the information they need to know exactly how their elected officials vote on these important issues. You can find more information about the scorecard at www.foodpolicyaction.org.

Last year, Rep. Tom Cotton scored a 0% on the Legislative Scorecard. In other words, on every single vote that touched upon sensible food policy, Rep. Cotton voted the wrong way. In light of this score and his blatantly false ad, I know this much to be true: the public deserves better. It’s up to voters to make sure Rep. Cotton gets the message.

Conservative Dems Work With Republicans To Cut Food Stamps

Matt Cartwright: "I did not come to Congress to kick the most vulnerable Americans off of food assistance."

After all Obama's talk about equality of opportunity in the State of the Union last night, at 11 this morning House conservatives rammed through a horrendous $100 billion farm bill taking another $800 million a year from the food stamps program and preserving subsidies for wealthy farmers. It passed 251-166, most Democrats voting NO and most Republicans voting YES. Progressives were united in their opposition. Many of the 63 Republican sociopaths who voted no-- like Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Joe Pitts (R-PA), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Steve Stockman (R-TX), Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Gary Miller (R-CA), Mike Coffman (R-CO), Paul Broun (R-GA), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Mike Pompeo (R-Koch), Kerry Bentivolio (R-MI), Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Phil Gingrey (R-GA), Michael DesJarlais (R-TN)-- complained that the cuts to food stamps weren't deep enough.

All the best Democrats in the House voted against it. Right after the vote Grayson told us, "The economy is recovering. The federal deficit is shrinking. There is no reason to take $9 billion worth of food out of the mouths of hungry people." Here are a dozen examples besides Grayson:

• Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
• Keith Ellison (D-MN)
• Mike Honda (D-CA)
• Donna Edwards (D-MD)
• Barbara Lee (D-CA)
• Matt Cartwright (D-PA)
• Mark Pocan (D-WI)
• Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
• Xavier Becerra (D-CA)
• Beto O'Rourke (D-TX)
• Jerry Nadler (D-NY)
• John Lewis (D-GA)

Our old friend Matt Cartwright, the NEPA progressive we helped defeat Blue Dog Tim Holden last cycle, didn't mince words about why he voted against it. "The Farm Bill will cut the SNAP program by nearly $9 billion, I did not come to Congress to kick the most vulnerable Americans off of food assistance." Most of the corrupt Blue Dogs and New Dems voted with the Republicans, naturally, and so did big agricultural bribe takers like Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Sugar), Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA), Kurt Shrader (Blue Dog-OR), John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA), Pete Gallego (Blue Dog-TX) and, of course, Steny Hoyer (D-MD). "While this Farm Bill is an improvement from the bill brought to the House floor last year," Mark Pocan told us a few minutes ago, "it still favors the interests of big agribusiness at the expense of Wisconsinites struggling to get by. I cannot in good conscious vote for the more than $8 billion in cuts to SNAP that will make it harder for 860,000 Wisconsinites to put food on the table."

Before the vote this morning, the Bridge Project released a comprehensive report going into great depth about how conservatives had screwed up the Farm Bill.

As Sens. Mike Lee and Ted Cruz were taking the Republican war on health care reform to new extremes, forcing the government to shut down in the process, another political standoff defined by conservative radicalism received much less attention.

Last October, the farm bill expired, leaving uncertain the future of agricultural programs and essential food assistance for the poor. The expiration came after more than a year of intraparty squabbling among Republicans over the size of proposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)-- commonly known as food stamps.

The House Agriculture Committee approved a five-year farm bill extension in July 2012, but congressional conservatives demanded major cuts to the food stamp program as ransom for their support. The debate carried over into the new Congress, where the Tea Party faction successfully blocked the bill from moving forward. Unable to satisfy the far right’s appetite for draconian cuts, Republican leaders eventually poisoned the process by severing the bill and passing “farm-only” legislation alongside a separate measure slashing funding for food stamps.

The Republican leadership’s decision to split the farm bill guaranteed its failure, but it was a coup for conservatives who have a long history of dishonestly vilifying food stamp recipients. Indeed, congressional Republicans habitually portray the food stamp program as “rife with fraud” and complain that its beneficiaries are “gaming the system” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Meanwhile, many of the same conservative lawmakers who fought to strip food stamp dollars from the farm bill have benefited personally from agricultural subsidies.

In reality, the food stamp program is both a crucial element of the safety net and a wise investment. Food stamps are responsible for keeping millions of Americans out of poverty, and they do much more to stimulate the economy than policies favored by conservatives, such as costly tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.

But the facts are irrelevant to congressional Republicans intent on decimating the safety net, a goal shared by several of the most influential players in the conservative movement. Throughout the farm bill debate, the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, and the Club for Growth all insisted on massive cuts to food stamps and pressured lawmakers to reject bipartisan compromise. Notably, the key backers of those groups include foundations associated with the ultra-wealthy Koch, DeVos, and Scaife families.

Congressional Republicans already allowed 2013 to pass without a farm bill because of the Tea Party’s commitment to slashing a key safety net program. Now, with Congress finally on the verge of a deal, Republicans should start focusing on how to give hardworking Americans more opportunities instead of trying to take them away.

The Fighting Spirit Among Kansas Populists-- Meet Jim Sherow

Kansas is one of the reddest of the red states. In 2012, Obama only managed to get 38% of the vote there. He won only two counties in the entire state, Wyandotte (Kansas City) and Douglas (Lawrence). Earlier, Rick Santorum won the GOP primary with 51%-- with more than double the votes Romney got. There are no Democrats in their delegation to Congress and in the 40 member state Senate, there are only 9 Democrats. But only one of Kansas' congressional districts actually looks, on paper, impossible for a Democrat-- the first CD, the massive western two-thirds of the state, which includes Manhattan, Salina and Dodge City. Last cycle the Democrats ran candidates in the other 3 congressional districts but gave radical right sociopath Tim Huelskamp a free ride. KS-02, represented by Lynn Jenkins has a PVI of R+8. KS-02's (Kevin Yoder) PVI is R+6. And the Koch brother's Mike Pompeo has a nice safe R+14 district in KS-04. Those 3 relatively safe seats look dangerous for Republicans compared to KS-01, where Huelskamp is the congressman. The PVI is a startling R+23. There are only 17 worse districts in America for a Democrat to run in and most of them are in Texas, Utah, Georgia and Alabama and produce lunatic fringe caricatures like Louie Gohmert, Steve Scalise and Steve Stockman. The closest any Democrat has come in recent decades to winning in an R+23 district is Jim Matheson's R+16 district-- and the voters there thought they were electing his father, a former much-admirered governor from their childhoods.

Enter Jim Sherow, a courageous, idealistic fourth generation veteran and former mayor of Manhattan, who has just opened an exploratory committee to challenge Huelskamp this year. His great-grandparents homesteaded in the what is now the first district and he was born and raised there. He's been teaching at Kansas State since 1992, where he is the Kansas historian and he's written five books on issues related to water, agriculture, Kansas and High Plains topics. He first entered local politics in a successful fight to prevent a super-Walmart from being built in an inappropriate part of town and was elected to the city commission in April 2007, serving until last April. I asked Jim to introduce himself to DWT readers with a guest post:

Why The Farm Bill Is Crucial For Kansas-- And For The Rest Of America
by Jim Sherow

Tea Party darling, Congressman Tim Huelskamp, represents one of the largest farming districts in the nation, but promises to hold final passage of the farm bill hostage until the food stamp program is drastically cut. In September 2013 the House passed its own version of the bill and reduced food stamp funding by $40 billion over ten years. Huelskamp celebrated this drastic reduction, and several news sources quoted him saying: “I think most Americans don’t think you should be getting something for free, especially if you’re able bodied.” Yet Huelskamp’s brother in southwest Kansas received $1.6 million in federal farm subsidies from 1995 to 2011, and the congressman’s parents received $1.1 million in farm subsidies from 1995 to 2009. But even if we set aside this type of Congressional hypocrisy we’ve come to expect, the question still arises: Why do we need a farm bill in the first place? Here’s why.

Farming is unlike any other occupation. Farmers have never controlled crop prices, weather conditions, or the land values upon which they are taxed. An old quip among Kansans is that the state never needed to legalize gambling because it had farming. Some level of economic stability needs be in place in order to keep farmers in business and to insure the nation’s food supply. The key to a sensible farm bill is providing the right level of support to those farmers who are actually in need.

In addition to making sure farms are able to stay afloat, the farm bill is also supposed to provide nutritional support for Americans who need it the most. The food stamp program (aka SNAP, Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program) became part of the farm bill during President Eisenhower’s administration when representatives from farming districts recognized that they needed the political support from urban areas if they were to have any chance of using taxpayer dollars to subsidize farming. Food stamps aid many more urban folks than rural and go primarily to children, the disabled, and seniors. The program hardly results in “dependency” as the average adult recipient is employed and relies on food stamps for only about ten months.

Mr. Huelskamp sees himself as a fighter for smaller government (if any at all), and “free market” solutions to all of America’s economic woes. By all accounts Huelskamp is difficult to work with; so much so that Speaker of the House, John Boehner, removed him from the House Agricultural Committee in December 2012. For the first time in over a century, perhaps as long as there has been a House Agricultural Committee, Kansans find themselves without representation.

Boehner’s decision did not seem to dissuade Huelskamp, who retorted that Boehner’s move was a sign that “the GOP Establishment cannot handle disagreement.” Undeterred to stop government “waste,” Huelskamp went on to vote against the Senate version of the farm bill. His “principled” stance had nothing to do with giving undeserved subsidizes to large farmers and agro-business, (forget about being a true market purist), but because he believes SNAP is bloated with waste and encourages recipients to become lazy, shiftless people dependent upon governmental handouts. (Every system has abusers of course, but one wonders if Huelskamp knows that one in six Americans is food insecure.) Huelskamp helped push through the House $40 billion in reductions to SNAP over the next ten years. The different House and Senate bills resulted in a compromise to reduce nearly $9 billion in SNAP support over the next ten years. What are the odds that Huelskamp will support the compromise? Almost zero if he holds true to form.

The 2008 stimulus ended on November 1st , 2013, and the food stamp program in Kansas was reduced by $33 million affecting 317,000 Kansans. The current level of funding allows about a $1.40 a meal per person. And I am sure that everyone reading this blog can imagine what it would be like to cook a meal-- every meal-- for $1.40 a person. Not exactly generous, is it?

Prior to the current compromise, the House and Senate versions of the bill appeared to eliminate direct crop subsidies to farmers. This reform, however, led to other new “subsidies” protecting crop revenues. These subsidies are included in the current compromise between the House and Senate. Additionally, the current bill up for a vote includes increased crop insurance coverage with a price tag of $10 billion a year. While subsidies are part of the public record, payments in crop insurance are not.

I just recently visited with a farmer who profitably works several thousand acres. He is an excellent farmer who cares about the land, and takes sensible ecological approaches to his farming methods. He is debt free. He also received $60 thousand in subsidies last year, all part of the public record, and crop insurance payments in excess of $60k. He freely admits that in his case the subsidy, while nice, was probably not needed. Public watchdog Environmental Working Group noted that 26 policyholders received more than $1 million each to help pay crop insurance premiums in 2011 while another 10,000 farmers were paid more than $100,000 each. Yet you won’t hear Representative Huelskamp talking about the need to cut the bloat in revenue support and crop insurance.

Americans deserve better than the current version of the farm bill. Even my farmer friend is worried about the future of agriculture. How are new, young farmers without capital ever going to begin farming? With sons uninterested in continuing the family legacy, he will have to rely on a new farmer to take over in the future. He’s uncomfortable thinking about his land becoming part of a large corporate conglomeration, which is quite a strong possibility. He also understands, and is very supportive of the need to continue SNAP even above its current levels of funding. He knows that feeding hungry Americans and farm supports go hand in hand.

The current compromise of the farm bill is grossly inadequate because it largely ignores the fact that farming is rapidly changing. Many agree that newer, low acreage farming techniques near large metro areas are an important part of the future of farming. This farming is intensive, usually ecologically sound, and results in high quality (often organically produced) foods for urban consumption. Yet there is precious little in the current farm bill that supports this type of farming.

And finally, Congress’s is ignoring that the pumping of the Ogallala Aquifer cannot be indefinitely sustained. Hydrologists know, and as Mr. Huelskamp is well aware, that by 2070 the aquifer in western Kansas will no longer yield its water. This aquifer was produced by melting glaciers tens of thousands of years ago, and receives hardly any recharge. So tapping this source is akin to mining and as we have seen in many areas of the U.S. such as Appalachia, mining economics are very fragile.

Today the irrigated farming in the First District provides for a powerful economy of corn and hay production that feeds vast herds of cattle and mega meat processing plants in several western Kansas cities. Yet no one is preparing for that day when the water runs out. And there are already some counties where farmers have had to quit irrigating. There is an irrigator’s canary in the Big First and authors of the farm bill should be listening to it in order to recapitalize the methods of farming and preserve their way of life for posterity.

The key to a workable and successful farm bill is in providing the right level of support to those farmers who actually are in need and anticipating the fast approaching changes in agriculture. It’s rather akin to making sure that SNAP adequately addresses those children and families that need it the most. It’s a shame that Representative Huelskamp, who should know better, doesn’t recognize this connection.

Under House Republicans The War On Poverty Has Morphed Into A War On The Poor

House Republicans may not have "the time" to vote on important measures with wide popular support like comprehensive immigration reform, ending workplace discrimination against the LGBT community (ENDA) or raising the minimum wage-- none of which Boehner will allow onto the 2013 schedule-- but they do have time to further attempt to steal the food out of the mouths of children by more chopping from the food stamp program. House Republicans look at the weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas and what they see is another chance to pass a bill to accelerate their endless class warfare against working families going through hard times because of the GOP ideological economic agenda that wrecked the economy. Lobbyists are drooling at the thought of their big Farm Bill payoff.

The top leaders of the House-Senate farm bill have come close to a framework during several tense negotiating sessions in the past two weeks, raising hopes on K Street that legislation could squeak through Congress by the end of the year. The four negotiators spoke via conference call Tuesday and reported no new developments.

“Everyone is still working hard to bring this together, which is what you want to see,” said lobbyist Tom Sell of Combest and Sell, who as a staffer was instrumental in crafting the 2002 Farm Bill.

“I’m in the optimist camp,” said Chandler Goule of the National Farmers Union. “There is plenty of time to get this done. Every time there is a meeting, there has been progress.”

House Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), House Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and Senate Ranking Member Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) failed to resolve their differences in a Monday conference call.

The biggest sticking points are cuts to food stamps, and work requirements in the House farm bill for recipients of that aid.

The House bill cuts $39 billion from food stamps, while the Senate's cuts $4 billion.

The White House is pushing to limit the food stamps cuts, and on Tuesday released a report that shows how many dependent families are on the program.

Food stamps were automatically cut by $11 billion on Nov. 1, when extra money provided under President Obama’s stimulus law expired.

Stabenow wants to count the $11 billion for the farm bill and is arguing against cuts that go beyond what is in the Senate bill. Republicans say that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cannot credit the farm bill with that deficit savings since it already happened.

Reaching an agreement on food stamps is key to resolving the two main problems in the farm subsidy title. Bigger cuts to food stamps gives negotiators more wiggle room to deal on the farm subsidies and still get a sizeable deficit-cutting score that could win over fiscal hawks.

“There is a lot of work left to do,” said Dale Moore, executive director for public policy of American Farm Bureau. “They need to make the decisions at the top end of the decision tree and then the rest will fall into place.”

On commodities, the House farm bill calculates subsidies by relying more on actual planted acres than what farmers planted historically.

That can be said to more accurately reflect risk, but at the same time it can distort the market by encouraging more production. The House bill offers more generous subsidies but forces producers to chose between price supports and revenue-based margin insurance.

The rift on farm subsidies can be bridged more easily than the one on food stamps, as was evident when corn, soy and canola producers floated using a rolling average of recent planted acres.

The cuts that already began this month translate to 20 fewer meals per month for every child and every vet who is struggling to survive on food stamps. This conservative class war against the poor has got to stop. But it will only stop if voters want it to stop enough to refuse to vote for Republicans and refuse to vote for New Dems, Blue Dogs and other right-wing Democrats. And it isn't just religionist hypocrites like Stephen Fincher (R-TN) who are guilty. Democrats in Congress should refuse to vote for the Farm Bill if it includes any cuts to food stamps until unemployment gets to 3%. Only 15 Republicans, almost every one of them cowering in blue-leaning districts, crossed the aisle to vote with the Democrats against more draconian cuts. 217 Republicans voted for more draconian cuts. Almost all are Republicans the DCCC is running against. There are plenty of Republicans in blue-leaning districts who the DCCC isn't challenging and who all voted for the cuts.

Among those Republican class-war extremists who can be defeated but whom the DCCC gives immunity are Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, John Kline, Buck McKeon, Fred Upton, Mike Rogers, John Mica, Dave Reichert and, of course, Paul Ryan, who cynically insists he's fighting poverty even while he votes to cut food stamps. Paul Upton's and John Mica's constituents have been polled recently and in both cases, there is a clear willingness to end their careers and replace them with Democrats. But Steve Israel is protecting each of them and refuses to back either Paul Clements in Michigan or Nick Ruiz in Florida, their opponents.

Paul Clements told us that this class war jihad by Republican congressmen like Upton against working families is "deeply un-American. He voted for a bill that kicks 3.8 million people out of the food stamps program by 2014. Michigan still has 9% unemployment, many people have used up their unemployment benefits, and our food banks can’t keep up with demand. Many children in Fred Upton’s district already struggle with hunger. I wonder how much time Fred Upton has spent with children who don’t have enough to eat? We do not need more hunger in America. Mr. Upton, in America we can afford to feed our people."

Nick Ruiz is running against a worthless old hack, John Mica and he and Clements are on the same page. "In voting to cut food aid to citizens who need it most," asked Nick, "what exactly does John Mica hope to prove? That he's heartless? That he doesn't care about the health of citizens who are having difficulty providing basic nutritional food for themselves or their families? There's no greater sign of weakness and dishonor than to prey upon the weak or downtrodden: today John Mica has proven his worthlessness as a representative of all American families."

Help Blue America replace these class warriors like Upton and Mica, with leaders who want to solve the hunger crisis, not exacerbate it. You can find Paul Clements and Nick Ruiz here on our ActBlue page, as well as the other Blue America candidates, each of whom wants to deal equitably with families who have fallen on hard times.

Is The GOP About To Go Down In Flames Over The Agriculture Policy Mess They Made For Themselves?

Earlier today I got into a bit of a revery about my days working at the Rainbow Cattle Company and the Cinch in San Francisco. What I didn't get into is that it was part-time work and the pay didn't even cover my meager pre-gentrified Mission District rent. Without food stamps… well, I don't know what I would have done. Certainly not start a record label that led to eventual payments of millions of dollars in taxes into the U.S. Treasury. There is no objective argument to be made that that wasn't one helluva great investment that taxpayers made! And perhaps it's that personal experience that compels me to write so frequently in support of the food stamp program.

I was aghast when I learned that conservative Democrats who have never experienced food stamps as recipients responded to the Republican demand to cut back the already beleaguered program by $40 billion by offering to cut it by $4 billion. WRONG RESPONSE! Progressives have a much better idea: the GOP wants to play hardball and jeopardize the health and the lives of working families; progressives can play hardball too-- by derailing the Farm Bill.

It's an idea rooted in the last food stamp fight: In June, the House failed to pass a farm bill that cut $20 billion from the food stamp program. The bill went down because 62 GOP conservatives thought the $20 billion in cuts weren't deep enough, while 172 Democrats thought they were too drastic. After the bill failed, House conservatives passed a much more draconian food stamps bill with $40 billion in cuts. But that bill was dead-on-arrival in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has vowed to pass a farm bill. To win agreement from the Senate and President Barack Obama, he's going to have to bring forward a bill with much shallower food stamp cuts. But introducing a farm bill with less than the full $40 billion in food stamp cuts will cost Boehner a lot of Republican votes-- especially because conservative groups, including Heritage Action, the Club for Growth, and Americans for Prosperity, have been urging House Republicans to vote no.

That means Boehner is going to need some Democratic votes. His problem is the same as it was in June: math. He needs 216 votes to pass a bill. In June, 62 Republicans voted against a bill with $20 billion in cuts. If Boehner loses the same 62 Republicans this time around, he'll need at least 47 Democrats to vote yes. But just 24 Democrats voted for the June bill [primarily right-wing Big Business shills like Kyrsten Sinema, John Barrow, Patrick Murphy, Mike McIntyre, Cheri Bustos, etc]. So Boehner will likely have to introduce a bill with lower cuts--costing him more Republican votes. The more Republicans Boehner loses, the more Democrats he'll need.

And as Boehner saw in June, winning House Democrats' votes for a bill that slashes food stamps by billions of dollars is a heavy lift-- after all, if no farm bill passes, food stamps spending would remain at current levels. Why compromise when you can win by doing nothing at all? "It would make sense," emails a House Democratic aide, "for progressives to vote against [the farm bill].

Some House Democrats are already publicly skittish about voting for any level of food stamp cuts. "Many progressive members of Congress, especially those of us who represent areas with high levels of unemployment and food insecurity, may have a hard time voting for additional cuts to federal nutrition programs," Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the ranking member of the powerful judiciary committee, explained in an email. A staffer for Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), who is part of the farm bill negotiating committee, says the congressman is "willing to compromise," but "will not vote for a bill that makes hunger worse in America." A staffer for Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) says that the lawmaker doesn't want to get into "hypotheticals," but that DeLauro does not support any further cuts to the food stamp program.

All this leaves Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the Democratic minority leader, in the driver's seat. If she wants to deliver 75 or 80 Democratic votes for a farm bill that cuts food stamps, she probably could. But so far, she hasn't committed to asking her caucus to vote for a farm bill-- even one with lower cuts. And she's already demonstrated that she can unify her caucus against a farm bill with cuts she thinks are too deep. Without Pelosi pushing for a yes vote, a compromise farm bill could go down again.

Now Boehner is scrambling to make a deal… a deal that pointedly ignores the Hastert Rules that he's using as an excuse to not allow votes on ENDA or on comprehensive immigration reform. One of Boehner's stooges, Iowa conservative Tom Latham is trying to make a deal that leaves the teabaggers out in the cold-- a compromise a lot closer to the Senate Democrats' $4 billion cut than to the $40 billion teabagger cut the House already passed. He's begging Senate Democrats to let Boehner save face by upping the cuts from $4 billion to $8 billion. And Senate Democrats-- feet held to the fire by progressives among them-- are holding firm and hanging tough, claiming they're willing to let the whole bill fall apart and blame Republicans their cruel, unreasonable and draconian demands. Farm groups that normally support mainstream Republican conservatives like Boehner and McConnell are furious that they can't control the crazies in their own caucuses. Extremist groups like Heritage, Club for Growth and other Koch-financed operations are demanding impossible cuts and threatening Republican congressmen willing to compromise. But take a look at what Big Agriculture has done for these 12 Republican agriculture policymakers in the last 2 dozen years:

• Jack Kingston (R-GA)- $255,299
• Frank Lucas (R-OK)- $204,250
• Jeff Denham (R-CA)- $195,613
• Farmer Fincher (R-TN)- $189,399
• John Boehner (R-OH)- $179,535
• Mike Conaway (R-TX)- $148,450
• David Valadao (R-CA)- $141,152
• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)- $124,600
• Tom Latham (R-IA)- $117,250
• Rodney Davis (R-IL)- $108,089
• Eric Cantor (R-VA)- $105,500
• Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)- $103,670

Over that time period, AgriBuisness has lavished $284,103,399 on Republican congressional candidates (and another $150,235,316 on mostly conservative Democrats). The Tea Party is demanding congressmembers choose between them and their career-long donors. That should be interesting to watch.

The 50 House Republicans Who Hate Poor People The Most

Republican in-fighting between conservatives and the neo-fascist radicals that have been challenging them, derailed the Farm Bill in 2012. This year Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy agreed to slash food stamps really badly and figured they would pass the bloated bill subsidizing wealthy farming operations (and scammers on the Upper East Side of Manhattan). They figured wrong. For too many of the extremists, slashing wasn't want they wanted. They want the program... well, drown in a bathtub.

So on Thursday, Boehner and crew passed the bill without a single Democratic vote, not even from the worst, most right-wing mangy Blue Dogs and New Dems. Even "Democrats" like Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT), Bill Owens (New Dem-NY), Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY), John Barrow (New Dem/Blue Dog-GA), Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL), Ron Barber (New Dem-AZ), Kyrsten Sinema (New Dem-AZ), Pete Gallego (Blue Dog-TX), Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Mike McIntyre (New Dem/Blue Dog-NC)-- whose default positions are to vote Republican-- abandoned Boehner and Cantor on this one. Not even the corrupt servant of the AgriBusiness lobbyists, Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), could bring himself to vote for this monstrosity.

The bill failed on June 20th-- 195-234-- because 62 Republicans refused top vote for it. Thursday only 12 voted against it. So 50 switched their votes because they preferred a version with NO food stamps over the earlier version which just severely cut back the food stamps program. These are the animals who voted NO on June 20th and YES on Thursday:

• Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
• Gus Bilirakis (R-FL)
• Kevin Brady (R-TX)
• Jim Bridenstine (R-OK)
• Paul Broun (R-Pit of Hell)
• Steve Chabot (R-OH)
• Mike Coffman (R-CO)
• Doug Collins (R-GA)
• Tom Cotton (R-AR)
• John Culberson (R-TX)
• Jeff Duncan (R-SC)
• John Fleming (R-LA)
• Scott Garrett (R-NJ)
• Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
• Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
• Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
• Tom Graves (R-GA)
• Joe Heck (R-NV)
• Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)
• Robert Hurt (R-VA)
• Jim Jordan (R-OH)
• Raul Labrador (R-ID)
• Doug Lamborn (R-OK)
• Leonard Lance (R-NJ)
• Tom Massie (R-KY)
• Pat Meehan (R-PA)
• Jeff Miller (R-FL)
• Mick Mulvaney (R-SC)
• Scott Perry (R-PA)
• Robert Pittenger (R-NC)
• Joe Pitts (R-PA)
• Mike Pompeo (R-Koch)
• Bill Posey (R-FL)
• Tom Price (R-GA)
• Trey Radel (R-FL)
• Scott Rigell (R-VA)
• Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
• Keith Rothfus (R-PA)
• Ed Royce (R-CA)
• Paul Ryan (R-WI)
• Steve Scalise (R-LA)
• David Schweikert (R-AZ)
• Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
• Bill Shuster (R-PA)
• Chris Smith (R-NJ)
• Steve Stockman (R-TX)
• Marlin Stutzman (R-IN)
• Brad Wenstrup (R-OH)
• Frank Wolf (R-VA)
• Don Young (R-AK)

Surprised to find Paul Ryan on that list? Jim Hightower wouldn't be: "The GOP’s budget demigod in the U.S. House, Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), expressed this dogma in a fanciful homily deriding America’s safety net as "a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency.” This from a guy whose family’s wealth was gained from government contacts and who has spent practically all of his adult life in the sweet-swaying hammock of congressional privilege, presently drawing $174,000 a year from Old Uncle Sugar."

Behind this faux-philosophical push are the smiling barons of corporate America. Without jobless payments, you see, desperate millions will be forced to whatever low-wage, no-benefit, dead-end jobs the barons design.

What’s at work here is a profoundly awful ethical phenomenon that has seeped into the top strata of American society: Our nation’s corporate and political elites have developed an immunity to shame.

It has become morally acceptable in those lofty circles to enrich themselves while turning their backs on the rest of us. Even more damning, they feel free to slash America’s already tattered safety net, leaving more holes than net for the workaday majority of Americans who’ve been knocked down by an ongoing economic disaster created by these very elites.

Odd that the U.S. announced a $116.5 billion monthly surplus Thursday, just before the GOP decided to try to end the food stamps program. Maybe they want to save that money for another war soon. Meanwhile, Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chairs Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) released a joint statement after the grotesque vote.

“The bill passed today will increase hunger in America. The removal of the nutrition provisions from the bill will make life harder for working Americans who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to feed their families. Republicans have cleared dinner tables around the country before our children have a chance to eat.

“America’s farmers, who will benefit the most from this bill, are against it because they know we shouldn’t have to choose between our farming neighbors and the hungry. The SNAP program provides 47 million people with the assistance they need to buy the food our farmers grow.

“Millions of working families are getting by on less and less, but Republicans continue to introduce bills that make it harder to get by in America. The bill passed today makes going hungry a real possibility for too many families. Feeding your children should never be a question in the richest nation in the world.”

Nihilism... Republican Style

Perhaps you read Greg Sargent's excellent piece for the Washington Post Tuesday about increasingly reckless and aggressive GOP nihilism in Congress. The Republicans are no longer a legitimate opposition party, "instead opting for a kind of post-policy nihilism in which sabotaging the Obama agenda has become its only guiding governing light." He goes on to ask Republicans in Washington an important question that few in the corporate media ever consider:

What’s the line between fighting for your ideology and ensuring that the government that pays your salaries actually works — or even attempts to work? At some point, governing has to take place, but when does that begin? We know what opponents will say in response to this: These are bad laws, and we have to do whatever it takes to stop them. But at what point does an election have a governing consequence?

...[I]t goes well beyond Obamacare implementation and the relentless blockading of Obama nominees for the explicit purpose of preventing democratically-created agencies from functioning. We’ve slowly crossed over into something a bit different. It’s now become accepted as normal that Republicans will threaten explicitly to allow harm to the country to get what they want, and will allow untold numbers of Americans to be hurt rather than even enter into negotiations over the sort of compromises that lie at the heart of basic governing.

Sargent points to the sequester that the GOP have used to slow down the economy, halt job growth and wreck countless lives across the country. And he points to the crazy demands they're about to spring on the country of what they want-- like the toxic Ryan budget-- in return for not bankrupting the country when the debt ceiling vote comes up again.

And there's so much he didn't mention. Like how Boehner and Cantor, having failed miserably to have passed a Farm Bill two years in a row-- primarily because enough of their own caucus wants to see poor people starve to death-- have now decided to not just reduce food stamps but to remove the program from the bill entirely. Let them eat... Republicans?

One Final Kaddish For The Farm Bill... And John Boehner's Career?

Chad Pergram is a Fox News reporter who skulks around the House floor all day looking to get behind the votes and delve into the whys of what's going on on the floor. He's better than almost all the other political reporters in the House-- and yes, he works for Fox! He had a field day with the Farm Bill and, although, we've already covered many of his insights since Thursday, a letter he sent that was forwarded to me by a Member of Congress is chock full of unreported information about how the disaster unfolded. It's called "Whisper Campaign" and... it's so wonderfully dramatic.

The House of Representatives’ chamber was its usual clamorous self Thursday afternoon as lawmakers sped through a lengthy vote sequence on amendments to the farm bill. Members dashed in and out during a “lightning round” of two minute roll call votes, squeezing in brief calls on their iPhones in the Speaker’s Lobby. Aides scurried about, briefing members on amendments. Some raucous shouts of “hurry up!” and “regular order” emanated from impatient lawmakers as the House hurtled toward a final up-or-down vote on the farm measure.

Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-KS) presided over the House, launching the last vote with a rap of the gavel. The gigantic, electronic screens bearing the surname of each House member sparked to life. Neon green “Y’s” and red “N’s” burst suddenly onto the board next to the names, denoting how each lawmaker voted.

And suddenly the din subsided. The frenzied back-and-forth to the Speaker’s Lobby halted. Mouths hung agape.

An eerie pall swallowed the chamber-- which was weird considering how boisterous it had been.

But something “bad” was happening. And people started whispering toward the back of the room.

The farm bill was supposed to pass. Only it wasn’t.

Lawmakers sat in their seats, staring up at the vote tally board. Some clenched the armrests with both hands. There were murmurs.

Bystanders of traffic accidents often speak of seconds before the crash where time seemingly slows to a crawl. The witnesses see the car run the light and see the other vehicle about to make the left-hand turn. But there’s nothing they can do about it. They know there’s going to be a wreck. And they feel helpless as mere spectators, destined to watch the accident unfold in slow motion.

Such was the case on the House floor during the farm bill vote. Lawmakers from both sides stood around and saw the accident coming. But there was little they could do. House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) walked the center aisle. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) huddled in the well of the chamber with Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) and a squadron of aides.

The crash was happening before their very eyes. The margin between the yeas and nays swelled. It wasn’t even close. Lawmakers were helpless. And after a few minutes of an uncomfortable quiet, Yoder banged the gavel, closing the vote.

There were 234 nays and 195 yeas. Only 24 Democrats voted yes. 62 Republicans voted no.

It is said that success has many fathers. Failure is an orphan. Unless there’s blame involved. And Congress being Congress, everyone rushed to find a scapegoat.

For the Republican leadership, the choice was obvious.

McCarthy spokeswoman Erica Elliott read the vote total to a scrum of reporters in the Speaker’s Lobby. She characterized the mere 24 Democratic yeas as “pathetic.”

As he exited, the chamber, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) pinned the blame on a tried-and-true GOP target.

“I am very disappointed in (House Minority Leader) Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who chose partisanship over progress,” said Cantor.

“Everybody thought this was going to pass,” groused Cantor’s spokesman Rory Cooper. “Democrats are not able to govern.”

Of course, Republicans hold a 234-201 advantage in the House of Representatives. One GOP aide who asked not to be identified quipped that “at the rate we’re going, we may wind up in the minority. But there’s no reason to act like we’re there yet.”

Cooper later clarified his remark in a Tweet, saying Democrats “won't work in good faith to participate in governance.”

Pelosi was having none of it.

“It’s silly. It’s sad. It’s juvenile. It’s unprofessional. It’s amateur hour,” fumed the California Democrat.

Others castigated Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), the senior Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, for the failure. Republicans argued Peterson at one point promised 70-80 Democratic votes. Then before the vote, the GOP aimed to get about 40 from the Democratic side. But those Democratic votes never materialized.

“They can try to blame it on me but that ain’t going to work,” steamed Peterson, who in turn imputed Republicans.

“If you overreach, you get nothing. You get nothing. You take things too far and it blows up on you,” Peterson said.

The “overreach” Peterson alluded to was amendments that drastically altered the original farm bill passed out of committee. There was an amendment offered by Rep. Steve Southerland (R-FL). It would allow states to impose work requirements on those who receive food stamps. The House okayed Southerland’s amendment 227-198. But only one Democrat, Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN), could stomach it and vote yes.

In particular, Peterson fought for his own dairy plan in the farm bill. But Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) advocated his own amendment to kill the federal stabilization program for milk and fill in the gaps with insurance.

The House overwhelmingly okayed Goodlatte’s dairy measure 291-135. But despite his resounding victory, Goodlatte still voted no on the entire bill. Goodlatte chairs the House Judiciary Committee. Four other committee chairs joined him with nay ballots: Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Jeff Miller (R-FL) and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA).

Some immediately asked why the leadership could allow those chairmen to vote no on a bill like this.

Others asked about how the bill got to the floor at all. Longstanding parliamentary doctrine dictates that the House of Representatives almost never brings a major piece of legislation to the floor for a vote unless the votes are locked down. So what happened here? Earlier in the week, there was chatter the House would debate the farm bill this week and then punt passage to next week. That would make sure everything was set. That didn’t happen. So naturally, some blamed Cantor, who controls the floor schedule, for bringing the bill to the floor for a vote.

Kevin McCarthy wouldn’t escape blame either, as he is in charge of whipping the vote. Of course McCarthy said Peterson was supposed to deliver a chunk of Democratic votes. But that didn’t happen. Still, some point out that McCarthy is the ultimate arbiter of vote counting in the House. Right or not, sources from both sides of the aisle blamed the Whip for misjudging where the votes were.

Then comes John Boehner.

Few in Congress have as much disdain for farm bills as Boehner. He’s only voted for one in his Congressional career. But Boehner has long said he would support this farm bill, even if he didn’t like all parts of it.

Speakers of the House vote sparingly on the floor. But Boehner made a point of voting in favor of the Goodlatte amendment. It was the first time during his speakership that the Ohio Republican voted on something other than final passage of a bill. Boehner then left the Capitol to deliver a speech to the National Association of Manufacturers. He then high-tailed it back to the floor to vote yea on the farm bill.

No one could remember an incident where the Speaker of the House took the rarefied step of voting for a bill-- especially a big one-- and then watched it melt down.

The press and commentators immediately jumped on Boehner. They described it as a debacle, suggesting this was yet another case of him not coaxing Republicans to support him on major pieces of legislation like avoiding a government shutdown, raising the debt ceiling, renewing the payroll tax, sidestepping the fiscal cliff, approving money for victims of Hurricane Sandy and a host of others.

Boehner wasn’t a fan of the entire bill. But he believed it carried significant reforms. It included deep cuts in the food stamp program and eliminated direct payments to “farmers”-- some of whom are simply property owners in the Midwest who live in Midtown Manhattan.

“It’s preposterous the Speaker is being cited as a failure in all of this,” said Tyson Redpath, a former Boehner aide and current agriculture lobbyist. “He was committed to the process. He was committed to the bill, which was a seismic step forward.”

But Boehner’s backing wasn’t enough to secure buy-in from 62 members of his conference-- to say nothing of Democrats.

Political analysts suggested this didn’t bode well for Boehner and the House at large as it begins tangling soon with immigration reform. Then there’s a potentially epic struggle over sidestepping a government shutdown and raising the debt limit.

Backers of the farm bill contend there were billions of dollars in savings in the package. Some of those supporters complained that conservatives who voted no because the cuts weren’t enough will be at Boehner’s throat later this year-- demanding cuts during the debt ceiling/government shutdown fight. Those critics contend some conservatives weren’t willing to accept this plan because it wasn’t “perfect.”

Meanwhile, interest groups like Heritage Action reveled in their prescience.

In May, Heritage Action sent to a letter to Boehner and Cantor. It urged them “to avoid bringing any legislation to the House Floor that could expose or highlight schisms within the conference.” Heritage Action CEO Michael Needham specifically cited the farm bill as one of those bills.

The farm bill failure reignited an old debate about palace intrigue in the leadership ranks. Some aides who toiled on the farm bill suggested they got “played” and this was part of an elaborate scheme to embarrass Boehner. One aide described the atmosphere on Capitol Hill as being “rife with conspiracy.” Of course, there’s no evidence of such an elaborate cabal attempt. Chatter about internecine leadership battles had all but stopped. However, the farm bill debacle quickly rekindled that talk.

Over the coming days, there will be many interpretations, theories and distillations about the meaning of Thursday’s havoc and who is responsible. But Thursday’s vote represents a tectonic shift in how the House of Representatives has operated over the past two and a half years to approve major, “must do” bills.

In the previous Congress (spanning 2011-2012), Republicans had a high-water mark of 242 GOPers. Democrats had 203 or fewer. That meant Boehner could only afford to lose 19 of his own before he required help from the Democrats to pass those measures.

For instance, in April 2011, 59 Republicans voted against keeping the government operating. But Democrats made up the difference. In August 2011, the GOP lost 66 of its own on the debt ceiling vote. But 95 Democrats helped usher that plan to passage.

Similar situations unfolded on the transportation bill in 2012, the fiscal cliff package and Hurricane Sandy relief. In some ways, Democrats were John Boehner’s best friend.

But those bipartisan coalitions frayed on Thursday.

The course ahead?

The GOP leadership brain trust knows it can always pass very conservative bills-- which wouldn’t have a chance of getting anywhere in the Senate or past President Obama. It could now adopt that strategy. But it would detonate immigration reform and result in a fiscal crisis this fall.

Or, it could revert to engineering a bipartisan coalition again on those “must pass” measures. Historically, farm bills have been bipartisan. But it’s harder to write a bill with wide bipartisan support when the nation is polarized.

Lots of whispering goes on at funerals. The House chamber fell silent as shock consumed members on the farm bill. Most were stunned, whether they liked the bill or not. But lawmakers were quiet because they may have witnessed the death of bipartisan coalitions to pass major bills which have dominated the GOP-controlled House for so long.

And everyone is whispering about who to blame.