Food bill: will it be passed today by Parliament?

[The Outsider]

That's a very bad comparison one more time. They pay a huge cost for borrowing the money. There is enough attention in politics such that one side has the deficit as the primary agenda. More importantly, they're a developed and advanced economy and don't need to bother about the necessary investments that we desperately need, have skipped and will continue to do so to afford the vote bank largesse.

And India is nowhere close to America in terms of deficit either.

Besides, no self respecting American would demand that the govt provide food for two thirds of the population for free. In India we somehow expect the govt to provide even the bare essentials.

Maybe, I've met only self disrespecting Amreekis in my stay here, because most I've talked to about the food security bill feel it's a good idea to develop a workforce from ground up. They have their concerns in implementing it in a corrupt setup like India, and so do I.

Feel free to share some successful economies that fed two thirds of their population with free foodgrains by law, year after year. Remember, the issue here is FOOD. Not pension, not healthcare, the most primary requirement and the first expense one accounts for: FOOD.

No shortage of food subsidies around the world. Google is your friend.

I rest my case :--D

Why am I not surprised! :dontknow:

[Clarke]

Huh? Even if the FM hadn't said it - it would still be true. I never alleged you in this discussion of being fekular but you find it very appropriate to indulge in ad hominems

All right, maybe I shouldn't bring out the partisan aspect in this case but I believe you are smart enough to know that FMs are frequently off the initial target when it comes to actual implementation of annual expenditure and the markets, ratings agencies and other parties had their doubts, forcing him to repeat the initial scheme of things.

[Clarke]

And India is nowhere close to America in terms of deficit either

License to spend ? Free food now, free homes later ?

Maybe, I've met only self disrespecting Amreekis in my stay here, because most I've talked to about the food security bill feel it's a good idea to develop a workforce from ground up. They have their concerns in implementing it in a corrupt setup like India, and so do I.

One builds a workforce when the govt distributes foodgrains to two-thirds of the population ?

No shortage of food subsidies around the world. Google is your friend.

You're skipping the details. No one said get rid of food subsidy altogether. Give me an example of a successful economy where the govt provides virtually free foodgrains for two thirds of the population by law, year after year.

[The Outsider]

License to spend ? Free food now, free homes later ?

Different countries, different priorities, but all give subsidies, even the baap of capitalism.

One builds a workforce when the govt distributes foodgrains to two-thirds of the population ?

Yes one does by ensuring that the poor are engaged in more meaningful activities than scavenging for food from trash.

You're skipping the details. No one said get rid of food subsidy altogether. Give me an example of a successful economy where the govt provides virtually free foodgrains for two thirds of the population by law, year after year.

Why are you hell bent on this exact subsidy? Food is subsidized in multiple countries across the world, even by self proclaimed and your proclaimed capitalist countries. India chose to subsidize food the best way it could with the back backing of renowned economists.

[Clarke]

Different countries, different priorities, but all give subsidies, even the baap of capitalism.

Who's disputing the very existence of subsidies ? Stating that all countries have subsidies doesn't contribute anything to the topic. The point of course is nature, intentions, effectiveness and implications. But yeah, food now & housing later ?

Yes one does by ensuring that the poor are engaged in more meaningful activities than scavenging for food from trash.

Or they're not engaged in all possible meaningful activities if the govt can provide for food now, other needs later.

Why are you hell bent on this exact subsidy? Food is subsidized in multiple countries across the world, even by self proclaimed and your proclaimed capitalist countries. India chose to subsidize food the best way it could with the back backing of renowned economists.

That's my principal problem, its FOOD and its two thirds of the country/800 million people, the roti that comes before kapda aur makaan. The first requirement for any human being that seeks employment. You're shouting out loud, earning your own bread isn't your responsibility, its the sarkar that must provide for it. There's a reason no country did any such thing on a similar scale before and throwing other subsidies or social schemes is I'm afraid, a red herring.

[Crookbond]

Clarke - Earlier you said you categorically stated that you have a problem with the cost. In the previous post, you mention you have an issue with effective implementation.

[Clarke]

Clarke - Earlier you said you categorically stated that you have a problem with the cost. In the previous post' date=' you mention you have an issue with effective implementation.[/quote'] In your opinion, what are the conflicting points between post #111 & what you're referring to as previous post (#146 I assume) ?

[Crookbond]

In your opinion' date=' what are the conflicting points between post #111 & what you're referring to as previous post (#146 I assume) ?[/quote'] I got confused with this part of your post. I was just seeking a clarification.

[The Outsider]

Who's disputing the very existence of subsidies ? Stating that all countries have subsidies doesn't contribute anything to the topic. The point of course is nature, intentions, effectiveness and implications. But yeah, food now & housing later ?

Why not? Don't you want a shelter on your countrymen if the country can afford it? In the case of food, many eminent economists have proved that we can afford it.

Or they're not engaged in all possible meaningful activities if the govt can provide for food now, other needs later.

Sorry to get personal, but have you ever been to a village or interacted with the poor? Food is the starting point of their worries, that does not mean that they will stop contributing as a workforce after being fed. They all want their children to become daactars and injineers. Not worrying about how to get the next meal on the table might help in it.

That's my principal problem, its FOOD and its two thirds of the country/800 million people, the roti that comes before kapda aur makaan. The first requirement for any human being that seeks employment. You're shouting out loud, earning your own bread isn't your responsibility, its the sarkar that must provide for it. There's a reason no country did any such thing on a similar scale before and throwing other subsidies or social schemes is I'm afraid, a red herring.

And that is my point too - kapdaa and makaan can be addressed later, but you can't have a starving country when the middle and upper class sinks in the earth due to the weight of the gold they are wearing. That is immoral, unjust, and inhuman dare I say. If we have the means - which eminent economists have said we have - we should provide food to all in the country. Sorry if that sounded like an election speech.

[Clarke]

I got confused with this part of your post. I was just seeking a clarification.

That's the point about subsidies itself. I wanted to stick to food and its scale but feel I'm being dragged off topic.

[Crookbond]

I am not sure why "Right to Food" is a problem, even the UN recognizes it. In addition, the food subsidy has helped people purchase more cereals from the government. In 2004, 23% people purchased cereals while this number shot up to 44.5%. The leakages have also reduced - Bihar went from 65% in 2009 to just 12% in 2012.

[Crookbond]

That's the point about subsidies itself. I wanted to stick to food and its scale but feel I'm being dragged off topic.

OK - The cost of Food Bill is a well accepted point but blow out of proportion too. The raise in subsidy burden will be approx. 18% (1.35% GDP max). The budgetary costs do not rise due to leakages - rather the households lose. However, there is no shortage on foodgrain procurement. We are full of grains in the cupboard which are rotting.

[Clarke]

Why not? Don't you want a shelter on your countrymen if the country can afford it? In the case of food' date=' many eminent economists have proved that we can afford it.[/quote'] The country can afford what it wants to either by printing money and/or skipping other expenditures, which is basically what we'll end up doing. One could dole out free housing too, just bid goodbye to good growth rates to fund lesser subsidies as a result of skipping the essential expenses & investments. The earlier subsidies were enough for the desperately poor. Its bogus vote bank politics to continue expanding it. Besides, you shouldn't bring in the political rhetoric. The poor man having 5 kids can't feed them but since he's getting few foodgrains his sons and daughters will now be doctors and engineers ? You'll have to provide a lot more freebies for that, which is another fiscal bomb worth considering. Yes indeed a speech. For a moment I thought I was reading Marx. Don't despise the middle class so much and don't be surprised why even their educated sections are so against the ruling party. They get a raw deal from their govt despite their major contributions to the treasury and also should not be legally held responsible for doling out food to two thirds of the country. That is actually an unfair and unjust expectation but does not win brownie points or votes.

[The Outsider]

The country can afford what it wants to either by printing money and/or skipping other expenditures' date= which is basically what we'll end up doing. One could dole out free housing too, just bid goodbye to good growth rates to fund lesser subsidies as a result of skipping the essential expenses & investments.

You are wrong. Very eminent economists have said that we can afford it, and very eminent economists have said we can't. How about we let things pan out over the next 10 years before making a decision either way, rather than your "I am certain" approach.

The earlier subsidies were enough for the desperately poor. Its bogus vote bank politics to continue expanding it.

Either you can believe it's vote bank politics or believe that the number of poor given by the government is wrong. I believe the latter - the country is a lot poorer than us Middle or Upper Class people can even fathom. I even started a thread on the sham of a poverty segregation by the government, but off the top of my head it received 20 odd replies.

Besides, you shouldn't bring in the political rhetoric. The poor man having 5 kids can't feed them but since he's getting few foodgrains his sons and daughters will now be doctors and engineers ? You'll have to provide a lot more freebies for that, which is another fiscal bomb worth considering.

Why not? Have you not read about Marginal Benefits Analysis despite coming across as a gyaata to decisively counter Amartya Sen on ICF?

Yes indeed a speech. For a moment I thought I was reading Marx. Don't despise the middle class so much and don't be surprised why even their educated sections are so against the ruling party. They get a raw deal from their govt despite their major contributions to the treasury and also should not be legally held responsible for doling out food to two thirds of the country. That is actually an unfair and unjust expectation but does not win brownie points or votes.

Why should I not despise the Indian Middle Class if it cannot collectively do a basic thing as pay taxes? And that's why I said the middle class can cry me a fecking river, but unless they are honest they should not expect honesty.

[Clarke]

You are wrong. Very eminent economists have said that we can afford it, and very eminent economists have said we can't. How about we let things pan out over the next 10 years before making a decision either way, rather than your "I am certain" approach.

You are right. We have a budget surplus lying around. No economist has said so. But yes, 10 years on one can look back and decide provided one looks at the complete picture.

Either you can believe it's vote bank politics or believe that the number of poor given by the government is wrong. I believe the latter - the country is a lot poorer than us Middle or Upper Class people can even fathom. I even started a thread on the sham of a poverty segregation by the government, but off the top of my head it received 20 odd replies.

That was the opposition's argument about govt figures on percentage of poor vs the coverage of the bill. It still is vote bank politics considering only "outsiders" like economists can challenge the bill and it becomes a white elephant for every politician except maybe Yashwant Sinha.

Why not? Have you not read about Marginal Benefits Analysis despite coming across as a gyaata to decisively counter Amartya Sen on ICF?

By your analogy, I or most ICFers cannot question anything MMS or PC decide either since we mango people have no theoretical knowledge of economics and political science. Just shut up and do what Rajmata says, ok! Doctors and engineers will fall automatically from trees.

Why should I not despise the Indian Middle Class if it cannot collectively do a basic thing as pay taxes? And that's why I said the middle class can cry me a fecking river, but unless they are honest they should not expect honesty.

Either bloody way, the salaried/honest ones are still running the treasury and will be forced the additional bill, not the corrupt ones. Why punish them for the ignorance of the poor ? You can't feed yourself but have 5 kids and its only fair that the tax payers pay for your food now every single day ? You see nothing wrong with this 800 million that needs a crutch ?

[Crookbond]

Either bloody way, the salaried/honest ones are still running the treasury and will be forced the additional bill, not the corrupt ones. Why punish them for the ignorance of the poor ? You can't feed yourself but have 5 kids and its only fair that the tax payers pay for your food now every single day ? You see nothing wrong with this 800 million that needs a crutch ?

Food subsidy earlier promised 7.9kg of grain per month per person with coverage of 44.5%. The National Security Food Ordinance 2012 has decreased it to 5kg per month per person with coverage of 67%. If there were 100 people earlier, Before - 44.5 * 7.9 = 351.55 KG After - 67 *5 = 335 KG The major concerns are NOT the cost but implementation and reach to households. The sooner we realize it the better it would be.

[Clarke]

Some "food" for thought from three years back. Order on free grain to poor can't be executed, says Manmohan Singh

The government will do all it can to provide affordable food to those below the poverty line but cannot implement the Supreme Court's order to give free foodgrains to the poor, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said on Monday. In an interaction with a small group of editors at his residence — his first in several years — Dr. Singh handled questions on a wide range of domestic and foreign policy matters with confidence, spontaneity and even a touch of uncharacteristic wit. “Well, I think a pigeon has been set among the cats,” he said, when his media adviser, Harish Khare, suggested he meet with journalists more often. Asked for his views on the film, Peepli [Live], which deals with rural indebtedness and displacement, he urged all journalists to see it because “it has a moral lesson both for politicians and for the gentlemen and ladies of the media.” Humour aside, the Prime Minister's indirect message to Natha, the film's farmer protagonist who ends up forlorn at an urban construction site, was that there is no such thing as a free lunch. India has no option but to industrialise, he said. “The only way we can raise our heads above poverty is for more people to be taken out of agriculture.” If that prescription sounded politically incorrect, Dr. Singh also took on the Supreme Court for straying into the executive's domain by ordering free food for the poor. “I respectfully submit that the Supreme Court should not go into the realm of policy formulation. I respect the sentiments behind the [court] decision that when foodgrains are rotting and people are suffering from deprivation, then some way should be found to ensure that the food needs of the deprived sections are met. But quite honestly it is not possible in this country to give free food to all the poor people.” The Prime Minister said figures vary but if one takes the Tendulkar committee's estimates, 37 per cent of the population is below the poverty line. “How are you going to give free food to such a large segment of the population,” he asked. His government was committed to ensuring that food was available to the poor at an affordable price. “But to say that we can give foodgrains free, quite frankly, if we do that on a large scale you would destroy the incentive of our farmers to produce more food and if there is no food available for distribution what will you distribute?” ‘Debate integral to Congress' Brushing aside media perceptions of a government beset by internal divisions and drift, Dr. Singh said debate was integral to the nature of the Congress as a “mass movement” and that the cabinets of Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi at times saw more dissonance than the United Progressive Alliance was accused of experiencing.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/order-on-free-grain-to-poor-cant-be-executed-says-manmohan-singh/article617813.ece Secular PM saab raised flags in 2010 when the Supreme court asked for distributing the rotting grain, something much lesser than what they passed in election year. I find it hard to add anything else, except maybe there is a free lunch.

[Crookbond]

PM saab and Sharad Pawar (who said abour rotting) IIRC drew flak for that comment. We can't talk both ways - if we chastised MMS for it we should give him credit now. That besides only pregnant women, lactating mothers, children 6 months - 14 years (local school - mid day meal scheme already implemented), malnourished children, destitutes (1 free meal per day), starving people (2 free meals per day for 6 months) and emergency/disaster affected people (2 free meals per day for 3 months) are people who are getting any sort of free meals with T&C. From what I know, this already existed even before the FSB was tabled.

[Clarke]

PM saab and Sharad Pawar (who said abour rotting) IIRC drew flak for that comment. We can't talk both ways - if we chastised MMS for it we should give him credit now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, the SC's order in 2010 was about distributing unused foodgrain lying around to the poor ?

[Crookbond]

A repackage of all food programmes: Jaitley

Apart from attacking the government for “misusing” its powers for promulgating an ordinance for ensuring food security entitlement, Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley on Monday dubbed the scheme as a repackage of all food programmes sponsored by the Centre. Moving the statutory resolution disapproving the National Food Security Ordinance promulgated on July 5, 2013, which paved the way for the enactment of the National Food Security Bill, Mr. Jaitley said the promulgation of the ordinance was a misuse of legislative power in the absence of any urgency to go for it. He wondered why the government could not wait for Parliament when nothing could have been achieved in the interregnum given that the list of eligible households would be prepared in 365 days till which period the present schemes would prevail. ‘Political decision’ He said the ordinance was a political decision but not one which the Constitution permitted, and the promulgation of the ordinance was a symbolic exercise. Pointing out that most of the functions were to be executed by the State governments, Mr. Jaitley said most States had also written to the Centre about the peculiarities that suited them and that they had better and superior schemes with which they intended to continue. He called for flexibility, saying the Centre was only providing grains while most States were providing higher nutritional package at lower prices than the one offered by it. He demanded that each State should be allowed to have their separate laws. There would not only be no extra financial burden but it would cut down the number of beneficiaries, he contended, quoting government figures and budgetary allocations for the current fiscal. The upper limit was caped at 75 per cent beneficiaries in the rural areas while it would be limited to 50 per cent in the urban localities, he stressed, claiming it would cover 81.37 crore people, lower than the 82.99 crore being covered currently. The budgetary provisions for all food schemes in the current financial year is Rs. 1.24 lakh crore, while Minister of Food and Consumer Affairs K.V. Thomas had put the burden of implementing the scheme at Rs. 1.25 lakh crore.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/food-bill-a-poll-gimmick-bjp/article5085494.ece Jaitley has been able to hit the head on the hammer on this bill.