Ag Committee Debate In Kansas

[Jim Meade / Iowa City]

5 term Republican representative Tim Huelskamp of Kansas is defending himself from a Republican primary challenger who sites his PhD dissertation which uses strong language discussing farm bills.

Huelskamp was thrown off the Ag Committee by Speaker Joe Boehner in 2013 and now wants to get back on after the election.  The trouble is, he wrote a scathing denunciation of the Ag Committee.  Now he claims he is being taken out of context and accusses the reporter who dug up the paper of colluding with his political opponent.

Any Kansas farmers like to wade in?

http://www.hdnews.net/news/local/huelskamp-s-dissertation-agricultural-price-supports-ignore-economi...

[smokeyjay]

Mr. Huelskamp is grasping at straws to explain away his record. He needs to be shown for who he is. He certainly does not represent myself, nor a majority of any of the members of commodity groups in Kansas. He will be remembered as the politician that removed Kansas from the House Agricultural Committee, for the first time in history of the committee. 

Rather than supporting passage of a farm bill at a rally on the Hill, attended by all farm state Senators and Congressmen and women, along with commodity groups representing thousands of farmers across the U.S., he held his own press conference at the same time denouncing it and refusing to participate in any discussions, unless his non-negotiable terms were agreed to. 

He proved to everyone present at the rally, by his absence and his "go it alone" behavior that he could not, would not engage in rational discourse to find an acceptable solution.  

[k-289]

Smokey  - The state of Kansas has recieved a generosity of press from Topeka all the way to the Beltway - interesting - - - 

[smokeyjay]

Yep, and all of it not very flattering. 

[sw363535]

Smokey's points are accurate...

But Mr Huelskamp's support falls largely on what he is.

He is principled and unbending, somewhat Trumanesque in nature.  And appreciated for it..

The politics that went into his being or not being on the ag committee is a little clearer when you understand what he ran on getting elected.  And he is not a man who will bend those promises.(

The idea that progress is accomplished by compromise is why 75% of the farm bill is now owned by entitlements and many in Ks are sick of "compromise" to hold on to that last 25% or whatever it will be.. doesn't sit well here...... 

but it sounds good to the organizations and departments that find their existance dependant on government budgeting...  and those are the ones with voices......  

[smokeyjay]

If ag had a choice, if ag had political clout on its own, most ag lobbyists would agree. That is not reality, nor will ever be. We can complain and act like Huelskamp saying, "Hell, no!", but that does not defend crop insurance. Western KS farmers owe a debt of gratitude to ag commodity groups for pushing for the 2006 disaster relief bill, which passed because liberal Democrats took back the Senate and both Houses overrode Bush's veto, twice. If there is amother farm bill, expect a tough fight, you will not have liberals to thank. They will fight tooth and nail to defeat anything we put up.

[smokeyjay]

Sw, I do agree with the frustration that farmers are expressing, and we are not far apart on that. But rather than tell Huelskamp to kick butt and engage in tactics that breeds chaos throughout Congress, tell him to make allies that will protect agriculture's interests. But that will never happen. Too many outside interests have a beneficial stake arising from chaos.

[sw363535]

Appreciate the discussion Smokey

And thanks Jim for bringing up a subject that is important to us all...

In a shaded way it is part and parcel of the voting that is propelling Trump....  Voters are hearing something they would like to here, even though it may not be practical or in line with current law.

The trading of votes that is necessary for compromise comes accross as a form of corruption, or at least the morphing of the representative we elect into something we didn't.

A principled stance that is consistant may be hard to deal with at times, but is refreshing after our line of carreer politicians who may may be unpredictable on anything.

[smokeyjay]

I certainly understand the frustration, SW. That said, we all know we rarely get 100 percent of everything we want. Marriage is always give and take. It's either that or dIvorce. A negotiated contract is give and take, finding common ground on issues most important to both parties. Neither party can expect to participate in a democracy without finding common ground. If inot, you have chaos and/or revolution. Perhaps a civil government course should be a prerequisite every five years to qualify for voter registration. 🙂

[smokeyjay]

I get the feeling Trump supporters would be more comfortable with a dictator telling everybody what to do or think. The trouble with that is you never know which way is the right way, and you might be facing the barrel of a gun.