FOR the first time in at least 40 years, the House of Representatives rejected a farm bill on June 20th. Recriminations have been flying. Republicans say the Democrats are “not able to govern”; Democrats retort that the Republicans are “amateur”. Stuffed as it was with costly handouts to rich farmers, the bill was hardly worth mourning. But because the two sides cannot work together, the chances of serious reform now seem remote.

The farm bill, which comes up for renewal every five years, has to accommodate two big, unrelated things: easing the plight of the poor (to whom the federal government gives food stamps) and cosseting farmers (to whom the government gives subsidies). Taxpayers were on the hook for $1 trillion over a decade to pay for all this, with a fifth going to farmers and four-fifths to cash-strapped families.

Traditionally the bill is thought of as bipartisan, with goodies for farm-state Republicans and urban Democrats alike. That means it usually passes without fuss. But last year and this year it didn’t.

The House dithered about debating a bill on the floor. Sharp internal divisions emerged within the Republican Party. Budget hawks hailed modest reform proposals, such as capping payments to big farmers and shifting from handouts to subsidised crop insurance (though that could end up costing even more). The Democrat-led Senate passed its own version of the farm bill twice in two years, but the House has decided not to play ball.

House Republicans demanded a 3% reduction in projected spending on food stamps over 10 years, saving $20 billion. (Spending on food stamps rose fourfold between 2000 and 2012, as the number of recipients surged and payouts became more generous.) Democrats in the House looked ready to swallow the proposed cut, knowing the money would be restored when the House and Senate farm bills went to conference (ie, when the two versions are blended into one compromise). They also took comfort from Barack Obama’s hints that he might veto any law that cut spending on food stamps.

Two amendments eventually killed the bill. Steve Southerland, a Florida Republican, wanted states to impose work requirements on people receiving food stamps. Democrats were aghast. Jerry Hagstrom, a veteran farm reporter, said that after it passed “a kind of sick buzz filled the chamber”. Another amendment, which tried to make the Soviet-style dairy programme a bit less wasteful, lost the bill some Republican votes—though they opposed it on the populist ground that it would raise the price of milk in the shops.

The House may now consider a new farm bill, or offer a straight vote on the version that emerged from its agriculture committee. Or lawmakers may sit on their hands until they are forced to pass another one-year extension, as they did last year, with no reforms at all. On January 1st 2014 dairy legislation from 1949 would kick in automatically, doubling the wholesale price of milk.

Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, has said that his chamber will not agree to another extension. He may be bluffing. Tom Vilsack, the secretary of agriculture, frets that failing to pass any farm reforms would mean another year of paying $147m to Brazil to compensate Brazilian cotton farmers for the illegal subsidies given to their American counterparts. It would also mean another year of direct payments, a staggeringly wasteful kind of subsidy given to producers of corn (maize), cotton, rice, peanuts and so on regardless of whether they plant anything. This may sound bad. But a one-year extension of the old bill would still be cheaper than the “reform” that just died.