Perhaps the best thing about the Farm Bill signed into law Friday by President Barack Obama is that it passed Congress with bipartisan support — even though everybody has reason to find fault with it. In the inevitably polarized world that is Washington, D.C., that can be considered a compliment.
The bill, some three years in the making and the subject of incessant political wrangling, essentially sets U.S. farm policy for the next five years and is expected to cost nearly $1 trillion over the next decade. The most controversial provision is an $8 billion reduction over 10 years in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, colloquially known as food stamps. “I’m very disappointed that this compromise makes harmful cuts to nutrition programs for low-income families in Washington state,” said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.
And yet, Murray voted in favor of the bill, which points out the conundrum inherent in the 2014 Farm Bill. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., championed the bill on the Senate floor, saying: “The Farm Bill is a jobs bill for our nation and for Washington state. It maintains our investment in research and exports so that American farmers can thrive and win in the expanding global marketplace. And it helps get more goods to market — whether that’s a farmers market around the corner or a new market in South Korea.”
That is important to Washington. In addition to being the nation’s leading apple producer, the state ranks among the leaders in wheat production and potato production. For Washington, the benefits of the new law include money for agricultural research, with some of it going to Washington State University. Glynda Becker, a WSU spokeswoman, told the (Spokane) Spokesman-Review, “For us to do our research, we need to have consistency.”