지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 연구보고서
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2012.12
- 수록면
- 1 - 183 (183page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Since 1949 many provisions of U.S. agricultural policy have been reauthorized every few years as primarily as temporary amendments of Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 and the Agricultural Act of 1949. Many provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill expired on September 30, 2012 (the end of the fiscal years for the U.S. federal government). Others will expire on December 31, 2012.
The House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture passed a bill out of their committee in the middle of the summer, 2012 that was much like the Bill that passed the full U.S. Senate in the early summer. However, the leadership of the House refused to schedule the bill for consideration. This delay was in part because many members of the House objected to high spending on food programs and some objected to farm subsidy provisions as well.
The two bills continued food subsidy programs with little change and authorized continuing environmental and conservation programs. The commodity programs would be modified by eliminating $5 billion per year in direct payments to those with a product history in grains, oilseeds and cotton and replacing that (and ineffective prices supports and price-based income supplements) with “shallow loss” payments that apply when revenue (or price) fall below recent high levels. The new programs could be excessively expensive or have no budget cost depending on yields and prices for major covered commodities. These “shallow loss” subsidies are designed to supplement on top of heavily subsidized crop insurance programs that cover deeper revenue and yield losses. A special provision for the dairy industry would add a supply management quota program requiring periodic cuts in milk producers.
Many policy advocates who favor the provisions of the farm bills under consideration argued for passage of the new legislation as soon as possible. They are concerned that in a lame duck session and especially in a new 2013 congressional session, budget pressures will dominate and the budget for farm and food subsidies will be cut substantially. There is a chance that with more time and less election pressure, the farm subsidies will be cut rather than readjusted to spend less on direct payments and more of revenue-based insurance-like support. More pressure to cut crop insurance subsidy rates may also develop as the budget exposure of these program becomes more apparent.
Farm Bills are commonly delayed. The 1985 farm bill became law on December 23, 1985, the “1995 Farm Bill” actually became law in the spring of 1996, and the 2007 farm bill did not actually take effect until June of 2008. So, the current impasse was more like business as usual than an aberration. Nonetheless, there is much policy and political concern on the part of advocates of specific policy provisions. Generally those who favor the policies included in the Bill that passed the U.S. Senate and the similar bill that passed the House Agriculture committee express the most concern about the farm bill delay. Others such as Washington Post and other farm subsidy skeptics are pleased that more time has been allotted to debate the course of farm and food subsidies and regulations.
The House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture passed a bill out of their committee in the middle of the summer, 2012 that was much like the Bill that passed the full U.S. Senate in the early summer. However, the leadership of the House refused to schedule the bill for consideration. This delay was in part because many members of the House objected to high spending on food programs and some objected to farm subsidy provisions as well.
The two bills continued food subsidy programs with little change and authorized continuing environmental and conservation programs. The commodity programs would be modified by eliminating $5 billion per year in direct payments to those with a product history in grains, oilseeds and cotton and replacing that (and ineffective prices supports and price-based income supplements) with “shallow loss” payments that apply when revenue (or price) fall below recent high levels. The new programs could be excessively expensive or have no budget cost depending on yields and prices for major covered commodities. These “shallow loss” subsidies are designed to supplement on top of heavily subsidized crop insurance programs that cover deeper revenue and yield losses. A special provision for the dairy industry would add a supply management quota program requiring periodic cuts in milk producers.
Many policy advocates who favor the provisions of the farm bills under consideration argued for passage of the new legislation as soon as possible. They are concerned that in a lame duck session and especially in a new 2013 congressional session, budget pressures will dominate and the budget for farm and food subsidies will be cut substantially. There is a chance that with more time and less election pressure, the farm subsidies will be cut rather than readjusted to spend less on direct payments and more of revenue-based insurance-like support. More pressure to cut crop insurance subsidy rates may also develop as the budget exposure of these program becomes more apparent.
Farm Bills are commonly delayed. The 1985 farm bill became law on December 23, 1985, the “1995 Farm Bill” actually became law in the spring of 1996, and the 2007 farm bill did not actually take effect until June of 2008. So, the current impasse was more like business as usual than an aberration. Nonetheless, there is much policy and political concern on the part of advocates of specific policy provisions. Generally those who favor the policies included in the Bill that passed the U.S. Senate and the similar bill that passed the House Agriculture committee express the most concern about the farm bill delay. Others such as Washington Post and other farm subsidy skeptics are pleased that more time has been allotted to debate the course of farm and food subsidies and regulations.
목차
[표지]
[머리말]
[요약]
[ABSTRACT]
[용어 풀이]
[차례]
표차례
그림차례
[제1장 서론]
1. 연구 필요성과 목적
2. 연구내용과 연구방법
[제2장 미국 농업법의 의미와 특징]
1. 농업법의 의미와 개정절차
2. 농업법의 특징
3. 농업법 규정의 해석과 실행
[제3장 2012년 농업법 제정 동향과 전망]
1. 농업법 제정 논의 과정과 전망
2. 농업법에 대한 NGO의 일반적 입장
3. 2008년 농업법 기한만료의 예상효과
[제4장 2012년 상ㆍ하원 농업법안 비교분석]
1. 농업법 제정에 영향을 미치는 주변 환경
2. 2012년 상ㆍ하원 농업법안의 재정지출 추정치
3. 2012년 상ㆍ하원 농업법안 부문별 내용 비교
[제5장 농업법과 관련된 주요 이슈]
1. 경손정책
2. 영양 프로그램
3. 새로운 낙농지원정책
4. WTO 면화 분쟁
5. GSM-102 프로그램
6. 원산지표시제도(COOL)
[제6장 요약 및 시사점]
[참고 문헌]
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2015-520-002591606