What If You Are Willing To Work?

       By now I assume you've all heard about the Farm Bill and all the hullabaloo over the House's actions. Maybe not. Well here goes my understanding of the problems. First the Senate passed a Farm bill with bi-partisan support that, as tradition called for, included farm subsidies and SNAP or food stamps, but the food stamp portion of the bill was cut be about $20 billion. It went to the House where the majority decided to split the two parts and passed a Farm Bill that did not include the food stamp portion of the bill.
       Then the house majority increased farm subsidies in one of the most fraud-ridden programs in the government. So now the House bill, without food stamps, is nearly as costly as the Senate bill which includes food stamps. When there was an uproar in the House by the minority over no food stamps, Cong. Stephen Fincher of Tennessee quoted the New Testament "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat." Of course everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Only, Rep. Fincher has received $$$ millions over the years in farm subsidies and will receive even more if the House's version were to become law.
       But what about those food stamps? What is the House's version of that look like? It looks like a completely blank page. That's because the majority says it'll take up food stamps at a later date. Which is a lot like saying "when hell freezes over." There are far too many Congressmen in the House who are completely opposed to food stamps for any meaningful legislation on that subject to take place.
       So exactly what should happen next? Well normally representatives of the two houses of Congress would meet in conference to work out a compromise. The only problem is that the two bills are nowhere near being compatible. That's because one includes a major portion of the bill that the other does not address at all. I think the House would need to pass a separate bill of food stamps. Then all three bills could be negotiated. The chances of that happening are next to nothing. I suspect there will have to be an extension of the current law, again, to allow time for reasonable negotiating. But they couldn't accomplish anything during the first extension. Who thinks they can be successful in the next?