REDUCTIONS IN SUBSIDIZED COVERAGE FOR GROWERS WILL BE REPEALED.

Back in April, Republicans in Congress formed a new agreement in order to move ahead on a plan that was designed to create a savings of $5 trillion over the next ten years, and reductions in crop insurance subsidies were a part of this effort to balance the budget at the end of that time.

HOWEVER, AS TIME HAS PASSED AND THE PRACTICAL SIDE OF THESE INSURANCE SUBSIDY DECREASES PLAYS OUT, IT MAY NOT BE THAT EASY.

At that time, the House speaker, John A. Boehner,said that the savings strategy was a reflection of how “We continue to get things done for the American people.” That said, several months have now passed and now that it is possible to see some of the impact of these changes to crop insurance subsidies, some of these budget spending cuts are starting to be appealed. For instance, Congress has said that it intends to repeal some of the laws for the spending cuts it previously approved, including the $3 billion in subsidy reductions for farmers over ten years.

THIS REINSTATEMENT OF CROP INSURANCE SUBSIDIES WILL REPRESENT ONLY 0.06 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL $5 TRILLION TO BE SAVED.

Republican leaders came together and agreed to hold a vote in December that will remove the savings from thefarm insurance subsidy cuts after lawmakers based in states where agriculture is vital registered a complaint that said that these reductions would be harmful to the survival of growers.

According to Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget senior advisor, Ed Lorenzen, “It just highlights that no one took the budget resolution seriously, or ever intended to actually produce the spending cuts necessary to balance the budget.” Lorenzen’s committee is a center-right group located in Washington D.C.

Many analysts are now pointing out that while it may seem as though it is easy to balance the budget by simply making cuts to areas that seem to be the most draining, this process is far more complex than it looks to be on paper. The crop insurance subsidies are regularly debated as a drain, but it is clear that in this particular instance, they are being viewed as a worthwhile drain.