Ciscomani Touts Farm Bill Although It Hurts Many, Including His Own Constituents    

Juan is happy, but farmers are angry, the faithful are dismayed, kids may go hungry.

(Photo credits (l to r): Ciscomani Facebook page, The Financial Times, Catholicreporter.com, Livenowfox.com)

The House of Representatives, for the first time in several years, passed a five-year comprehensive Farm Bill last week (it had been, very Congresslike, kicking the can down the road with short-term renewals of the last Farm Bill in 2018). Having federal guidelines for agriculture is, in general, a good thing. Sixth District Rep. Juan Ciscomani obviously thought so. He was quoted on his Facebook page: “This is a meaningful win for Arizona priorities, strengthening our state’s 5 C’s and supporting the men and women that keep our ag industry forward.”

            While almost every Republican in the House supported the bill, most Democrats voted against it. Don’t they like farmers? Of course they do. They just don’t like it that the bill contains no immediate relief for inflation-and-tariff smacked farmers and continues the Trump administration’s war on poor people to the benefit of the rich.

            The Farm Bill:

• Reduces the overall budget of the Department of Agriculture by 1.4 percent.
• Does nothing to ease the burden on farmers brought on by the failing Iran War and the bottling up of crude oil and fertilizer components in the Persian Gulf. The Financial Times relates the extra $53,000 it will cost an Illinois farmer to fertilize his crop this year, “I’m upset that in these trying times, when the ag sector is already hurting bad, it was the last thing we needed stacked on top of us.”
• Doesn’t back away from the draconian cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, it once was called Food Stamps). H.R. 1, the so-called Once Big Beautiful Bill rammed through Congress at the President’s insistence last year, called for reductions of $18 billion a year. Just fine with the current House majority.
• The Women, Childrens and Infants Program (commonly called WIC) will “lose $141 million in funding for fruit and vegetable benefits for the nearly 5.4 million children and pregnant and postpartum women enrolled, according to an estimate from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,” according to the Washington Post. And,  “the National WIC Association, an advocacy group for public health nutrition providers, estimated that the bill would reduce monthly fruit and vegetable benefits from $52 to $13 for breastfeeding mothers and from $26 to $10 for young children.”

           James Costa, a Democratic congressman from California’s agriculture-rich San Juaquin Valley, voted “no” because of “The fundamental failures of this bill. Rather than building on bipartisan priorities, House Republicans chose to slash billions from the nutrition programs that feed hungry children, seniors, and veterans…A bill that defunds USDA while farm country is hurting, and cuts food assistance for working families is not a compromise. It is a choice, and it is the wrong one.”

            These topics would be great ones to discuss with Juan Ciscomani at a voters’ Town Hall somewhere in the Sixth. Unfortunately, the odds of him ever showing up at one are about the same as bananas and coconuts growing in Benson.