This week The US House of Representatives is set to vote on the misnamed "Farm Bill". This is not a farm bill; it's a food stamp bill. Food stamps make up roughly 80 percent of the bill. The 20 percent of the bill that is left is mostly handouts in the form of corporate welfare and other programs that benefit special interests.

Further, this "Farm Bill" is 56% MORE costly than the last. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected the last farm bill, in 2008, to cost $604 billion. The new House farm bill is projected to cost a whopping $940 billion. This is 56 percent more than the 2008 farm bill. If this wasn't bad enough, the actual costs will likely be much greater, just like the actual costs of the 2008 bill

1.       This is not a farm bill; it's a food stamp bill.  Food stamps make up roughly 80 percent of the bill.  The 20 percent of the bill that is left is mostly handouts in the form of corporate welfare and other programs that benefit special interests.

2.      This "farm" bill is a textbook example of legislative logrolling.  The issues of food stamps and farming are far too important to be jammed together in a behemoth of a bill totaling a trillion dollars. When it comes to debating a bill with a price tag as large as this one, Congress owes it to the American taxpayers to engage in careful consideration of these programs.

3.      The farm bill is filled with favors for special interests.  One of the ways Congress can achieve reform that benefits taxpayers is by separating the "farm" bill into two components and consider each independently on its own merits.  The combination of food stamps and farm policy into a single bill holds us back from debating meaningful reforms in either area.

4.      The farming industry as a whole is enjoying record profits, yet  special interests continue to lobby Congress to  create new programs that not only help guarantee profit, but pad their already healthy bottom line.  Large corporate farms don't need and shouldn't receive massive subsidies from taxpayers, many of whom are struggling to make ends meet.

a.       In fact, about 75 percent of large farms receive subsidies compared to only 24 percent of small farms.  Consider that people like former President Jimmy Carter, the Rockefeller family and even some Members of Congress receive these taxpayer-funded subsidies.

5.      Ironically the exact policies crafted in the 1930's to help struggling farmers are the same ones that are now placing the smaller farms at a competitive disadvantage with the larger farms.  A lot has changed since the enactment of the first farm bill.  Congress shouldn't continue outdated policies simply to coddle this thriving, innovative industry that is led by business leaders who can manage risk as well anyone else.

6.      Both the House and Senate "farm" bills eliminate flawed programs only to create new programs that could turn out to be even worse. Despite claims of cutting spending some the House is projected to spend 56 percent more than the projected costs of the 2008 farm bill.  Additionally, taxpayers could be on the hook for millions more because Congress is assuming the cost of these programs will be much cheaper than what reality may prove.

7.      Spending on food stamps has doubled between 2008 and 2011, from approximately $40 billion to $80 billion respectively.  Today roughly one in seven Americans receive food stamps, and although we're seeing a slowly improving economy, there has not been a corresponding decrease in the number of individuals receiving food stamps.  Despite these realities, the spending cuts proposed in the House version of the farm bill are so minimal that they won't even cover the amount of fraud, waste and abuse plaguing the food-stamp program.

8.      The farm bill is central planning at its very worst.  If left on its current path, the farm bill will continue to roll right over taxpayers and leave any notion of fiscal responsibility in the dust. When politicians from both parties come together to irresponsibly spend taxpayer dollars and drive up the cost of food for families, Congress isn't working for the American people

Below is a recent "Morning Bell" piece from The Heritage Foundation regarding Voter ID.  Senior Legal Fellow Hans Von Spakovsky will be publishing a book on the Voter ID issue.

For example a recent attack on voter ID is occurred in Minnesota, where earlier this month, the state Supreme Court will hear a case filed by the League of Women Voters (LWV).

In League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie, the LWV is trying to convince the court to remove a referendum question from the November ballot. Its argument is that voters won't be able to understand the ballot question.

This referendum was passed by the Minnesota legislature in April and would amend the state constitution to require all voters voting in person to "present valid government-issued photographic identification before receiving a ballot." The amendment would also require absentee voters to be "subject to substantially equivalent identity and eligibility verification."...read more

Justice Department Blocks Voter ID at Every Turn

People seemingly voting after they've been dead for years. Drug kingpins buying votes from poor people to sway elections. Non-citizens being bussed to the polls and coached on how to vote. Stories of voting fraud are shocking, and states have been taking action to make sure that elections are secure. But the Justice Department, led by Attorney General Eric Holder, has blocked states at almost every turn.

This is the same Justice Department that stopped a non-partisan election reform by arguing that if party affiliation were removed from a ballot, African-American voters wouldn't be able to identify and vote for the Democrats. Holder has continued to stoke the racial fires, calling a requirement for voters to produce photo identification a "poll tax." Heritage expert Hans von Spakovsky said this argument is merely political. "Holder continues to perpetuate the incendiary error to the public, knowing that the poll-tax assertion is a racially charged one that should not be used lightly," von Spakovsky said. He explained:

Even the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals?the most liberal appeals court in the country?did not buy the Holder poll tax claim when it reviewed Arizona's voter ID law. In Gonzalez v. Arizona (2012), the Ninth Circuit held that even though "obtaining the free identification required under [Arizona law] may have a cost," such immaterial costs are not a poll tax.

Holder is now "investigating" Pennsylvania's voter ID law, on the left's charge that it disenfranchises minorities.

Former Congressman Artur Davis, an African-American from Alabama who served in Congress as a Democrat from 2003 to 2011, finds this argument incredibly insulting. Speaking at The Heritage Foundation yesterday, Davis held up his driver's license and said, "This is not a billy club. It is not a fire hose. I used to represent Birmingham and Selma, Alabama, and I know something about fire hoses."

In states that have voter ID laws, the real-world results show that minorities have not been disenfranchised by any means. States that require ID to vote have offered free IDs to anyone who does not have one already. In Kansas, which allows any of nine different forms of ID as proof of identity to vote:

Out of a total of 1.713 million registered voters in Kansas, only 32 people had requested a free photo ID as of May 4, 2012. That represents only 0.002 percent of the registered voters in the state. Of those 32 voters, 80 percent were white, 10 percent were black, and the race or ethnicity of 10 percent was unknown. Thus, there is no evidence that minority voters were disproportionately affected.

Georgia, which has had voter ID since 2007, allows six different forms of ID to vote. And there has been no stampede of would-be voters who lack identification: "The number of photo IDs issued by Georgia to individuals who did not already have one of the forms of ID acceptable under state law is remarkably small, averaging less 0.05 percent in most years, and not even reaching three-tenths of 1 percent in a presidential election year."

What happened to minority voting after the law went into effect? In the 2008 presidential election, Hispanic voting in Georgia increased by 140 percent over the 2004 election. African-American voting increased by 42 percent. That is also a higher rate of increase than in other states without voter ID. Von Spakovsky notes:

The increase in turnout of both Hispanics and blacks in the 2008 presidential election after the voter ID law became effective is quite remarkable, particularly given the unproven and totally speculative claims of the Justice Department that the voter ID requirements of Texas and South Carolina will somehow have a discriminatory impact on Hispanic and black voters. In fact, Georgia had the largest turnout of minority voters in its history.

The evidence that producing photo ID is a burden simply isn't there. "How can it be a burden to ask people to do something they do all the time?" asked Congressman Davis, who said he went to a news organization to do an interview on voter ID and had to produce his driver's license to enter the news organization.

The Justice Department requires ID from visitors as well.

Voter ID battles are not over, and activist groups are trying everything they can think of to challenge these requirements. The Minnesota legislature passed a referendum that placed the question of voter ID on the ballot for citizens to decide. But the ballot question is under litigation because the League of Women Voters has sued, arguing that the question is "misleading" to voters. The Minnesota Supreme Court will be considering it.

In the state of Kentucky, it has become clear that buying votes is a common practice. A person's vote can often be bought for $50. Recently, it has come to light that cocaine and marijuana dealers are using drug money to buy votes and turn elections. According to one report, "In the Eastern District of Kentucky alone, more than 20 public elected officials and others have either been convicted or pleaded guilty in various vote-buying cases just in the last two years."

America cannot allow its elections to be anything but secure and legal. Preventing voter fraud is common sense, and it is outrageous that the U.S. Justice Department would stand in the way.

RESOURCES:

Holder Gets It Completely Wrong on Poll Taxes and Voter ID

The Problem of Non-Citizen Voting

Lessons from the Voter ID Experience in Kansas

Lessons from the Voter ID Experience in Georgia

Without Proof: The Unpersuasive Case Against Voter Identification

Families are gearing up for Memorial Day vacations over the next few days, the good news for travelers is that oil prices are falling. Gasoline prices have dipped below $4 a gallon. Headlines across the nation are optimistic, but it's not time to start celebrating yet. Gas prices are still higher than they have to be.

Heritage expert Nick Loris says that both Congress and the administration have failed to act constructively to remove obstacles that would allow the market to respond more effectively to high oil prices and there are a number of things they can still be doing.