• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

And so the final battle begins...

Do you support the new Farm Bill

  • NO

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • YES

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
And so the final battle begins...

Saying he was a "happy man," and likening the Farm Bill process to "passing a kidney stone," Sen. Tom Harkin (D, IA), chair of the Senate Ag Committee and chair of the 2008 Farm Bill conference, joined his House counterpart Rep. Collin Peterson (D, MN) in declaring this week "we have a deal."

While not quite approaching the same level as the selection of a pope, the internal politics and the regional tug-of-war within this process is going to stand for a long time as probably the most frustrating Farm Bill process ever.

While he smiled and said all the right things -- and even put out a press release saying all the rights things -- Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R, VA), was obviously the reluctant bridesmaid at this week's ceremony. He's previously said he'd withhold his support until he saw the bill in writing and knew the official cost, but as a good and loyal ag soldier, he did his duty at the public press conference. He was echoed throughout the day by other House members -- generally those getting a big chunk of the Farm Bill spending pie.

Not so collegial was Rep. John Boehner (R, OH), House minority leader and former member of the House Ag Committee. Having never met a Farm Bill he didn't hate -- he's been a die-hard opponent of direct payment and support programs for years -- Boehner took the unusual step of publicly announcing he opposes the Farm Bill conference report.

It turns out Boehner was the opening act for the headliner of this evolving variety show, as President Bush late in the day May 8, confirmed what everyone in town already knew, namely he would veto the bill when it hits his desk in the next 10 days or so.

Now comes the melodrama of vote getting, deal cutting and vote counting. In order to override the veto, both chambers need to come up with two-thirds who will vote to overturn the President's veto. In the Senate, that looks to be fairly easy to do. However, the House is a totally different story.

There are several factions in the House not happy with the bill. First are the fiscal conservatives who think a bill costing $610 billion over 10 years is way too fat and way too unnecessary. The Blue Dog Democrats, part of that fiscal conservative gang, are also not crazy about the apportionment of the dollars. Then there are the reformers, those who believed this was the golden opportunity to wean farmers and ranchers off the government dole, bring the U.S. farm programs into world trade alliance compliance, and signaling a new day in food and ag policy.

Can Peterson exert sufficient pressure, charm and salemanship to win his two-thirds majority? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) and her lieutenants will be marching the aisles next week, echoing the Speaker's support for the bill because it increases food stamps and other nutrition programs by $10.4 billion -- just as she demanded. You read that right -- every penny of new spending money in this bill, all those dollars over which battles were fought, friendships strained and headaches medicated, goes to nutrition programs. In fact, overall, 73% of the bill's spending goes to nonfarm items, with only 16% being spent on subsidies and farm payments.
That's actually the winning message for the House. This is not longer a Farm Bill but a new "Food Bill." And it signals the beginning of the end for traditional farm programs and their funding. (I'm excited to see what the new title of the bill is -- rumor is staff spent hours arguing over what to rename the bill once they figured out most of the money was going to food stamps.)

And if you don't believe me, just think about Peterson's comment at his press conference this week. "You know, I've never liked direct payments. I don't think they provide a decent safety net. We're going to get rid of them in the next Farm Bill."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
News from the House Agriculture Committee

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Media Contacts:
April Demert Slayton (Peterson) (202) 225-6872
Alise Kowalski (Goodlatte) (202) 225-0184

House Overwhelmingly Approves Food, Conservation and Energy Act Conference Report
Bill passes with 318 bipartisan votes

WASHINGTON - Today, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the conference report for the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of
2008, a groundbreaking bill that invests in improved nutrition, conservation, renewable energy and farm programs and includes
significant reforms.

With the support of more than 550 farm, specialty crop, conservation, nutrition, consumer and religious organizations, House
Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, Ranking Member Bob Goodlatte, members of the House Agriculture Committee, and
members of the conference committee outlined the conference report's new historic new investments in priorities important to all
Americans.

"The Food, Conservation and Energy Act makes essential improvements in the food, farm and conservation programs that meet the needs
of Americans in cities, suburbs and rural communities nationwide," Chairman Peterson said. "This bill will help working American
families struggling with high food prices and will ensure that our farmers and ranchers can continue to provide a safe, abundant,
homegrown supply of food and fiber."

"Agriculture policy is essential to the lives of every American and it is important that the policy we formulate is responsible,
effective, and at a low cost to the taxpayer and this bill meets those requirements. This farm bill contains more reform than any
farm bill in history. Although we call it a farm bill, farm programs only account for roughly 12 percent of this bill. And as a
part of the total federal budget, farm programs account for only one-quarter of one percent--a two-fold decrease from the 2002 Farm
Bill. This fiscally responsible farm bill will still allow America's farmers and ranchers to produce the safest, most reliable, and
most affordable food supply in the world," said Ranking Member Bob Goodlatte.

Important highlights of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (H.R. 2419)

. Invests $10.361 billion in nutrition programs, providing needed funding for food banks, improving and expanding access to the food
stamp program by reforming benefit rules to cover rising food costs


. Devotes more than $1.3 billion in funding for organic agriculture, fruit and vegetable programs, and local food networks
o Includes a new title dedicated to the needs of specialty crops and organic agriculture, including nutrition, research, pest
management and trade promotion programs

. Extends and provides $7.9 billion of new funding for popular conservation programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentive
Program, Farm Protection Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Conservation Reserve Program

. Invests an additional $1 billion in renewable energy research, development and production i
o Encourages the transition from corn-based ethanol to cellulosic ethanol by reducing the tax credit for corn ethanol and increasing
the credit for cellulosic ethanol production

. Reduces the income cap for farm program payments by 80%, preventing those with non-farm income above $500,000 from receiving any
farm program payments and imposing a new income limit on farm income above $750,000 per year. It also requires direct attribution,
closing loopholes that allow people to avoid payment limits by receiving money through multiple businesses

. Requires mandatory Country of Origin Labeling for fruit, vegetables and meat

. Rebalances loan rates and target prices among commodities, achieving greater regional equity.

. Offers farmers participating in commodity programs with a choice between the traditional price protection safety net and new,
market-oriented revenue coverage payments

The conference report and related materials are available on the Committee's website at
http://agriculture.house.gov/inside/2007/FarmBill.html.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big vote for US farm bill could beat Bush veto

Reuters, Wednesday May 14 2008
By Charles Abbott
WASHINGTON, May 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday passed and sent to the Senate a $289 billion, five-year farm bill that expands nutrition and biofuel programs in the face of President George W. Bush's promise to veto it.
Agriculture Committee leaders said the 318-106 vote, a 3-to-1 margin, for the bill showed the House can override a veto, which could be issued next week. A two-thirds majority is needed in the House and Senate to override a veto.
Two-thirds of the money in the farm bill would go to public nutrition programs like food stamps. Lawmakers gave nutrition the largest increase in the farm bill, $10.3 billion over 10 years. Connecticut Democrat Rosa DeLauro called it a historic increase that responds to rapid rises in food prices.
Written every few years, farm bills are panoramic legislation covering dozens of programs. Land stewardship programs were alloted a $4 billion increease, biofuel development $1.2 billion and specialty crops $1.35 billion.
Funding for crop supports and crop insurance was cut by several billion dollars.
In a shift in emphasis on biofuels, the bill reduces the tax credit for corn-based ethanol by 12 percent, to 45 cents a gallon beginning in 2009. It offers a $1.01 a gallon tax credit through 2012 for ethanol from cellulose, found in grasses, woody plants and crop residue.
"If this bill makes it to my desk, I will veto it," Bush said in a statement on Tuesday. He said the farm bill has at least $10 billion in hidden spending, subsidizes millionaire farmers and contradicts the free-market reforms the United States seeks in world trade talks.
Bush has vetoed nine bills during two terms as president and been overridden once, on a waterway bill last fall.
"After this vote, it's pretty clear we're going to override the veto," said Agriculture Committee chairman Collin Peterson, Minnesota Democrat. The Republican leader on the panel, Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte, a backer of the bill, said the 3-to-1 margin "is very significant."
U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said the administration will fight to sustain the veto.
The Senate is expected to give final congressional approval on Thursday. Congress also will send Bush a stopgap bill to keep agricultural programs running through May 23 while the override is decided.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the new nutrition funding was a leading reason, along with support for new biofuels, to vote for the farm bill. "I too am not satisfied that it does enough in terms of farm subsidies," said Pelosi.
Food prices are forecast to rise by a sharp 4.5 percent this year. The farm bill revises the food stamp formula to result in larger benefits for some recipients and puts an additional $1.25 billion into donations to food banks. Ten million people will benefit from the changes, said DeLauro.
Some 27.7 million Americans received food stamps at latest count. Average benefit is $1 per meal.
"Where's the real reform?" asked Wisconsin Democrat Ron Kind, who said the marquee reform -- denial of some farm subsidies to wealthy Americans -- would affect only 0.2 percent of America's 2 million farms. "Give me a break."
For months, farm subsidy rules were regarded as the test of reform for the bill. Under a final-round proposal, the bill would bar all farm subsidies to people with more than $500,000 in off-farm income and deny "direct" payments to those with more than $750,000 income from farming.
"We put a limit on farm income for the first time," said Peterson. "This is a good bill. It has a lot of reform."
The income limits are estimated to save $62 million a year. Direct payments, guaranteed to growers annually, total $5.2 billion a year. Two other subsidies, price supports and counter-cyclical payments, are available when prices are low.
Congress spent more than two years developing the farm bill. During that period, grain and soybean prices soared around the world, making food security an issue.
U.S. farm groups, recalling the collapse of market prices after a brief boom in the 1990s, opposed any reduction in the federal safety net because of rising costs for fuel, fertilizer, pesticides and seed.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
May 15, 2008
WASHINGTON - The House emphatically approved a major five-year farm bill by a veto-proof margin yesterday, setting up President Bush for May 15, 2008
Search baltimoresun.com Web enhanced by Login or register Subscriber Services House OKs farm bill by veto-proof margin
Mcclatchy-tribune
May 15, 2008
WASHINGTON - The House emphatically approved a major five-year farm bill by a veto-proof margin yesterday, setting up President Bush for a major political embarrassment.

Brushing off Bush's opposition, many Republicans joined a majority of Democrats in approving the farm bill, 318-106. This is well over the two-thirds vote needed to override Bush's promised veto.

"We've solved a lot of problems in this bill," said Rep. Collin C. Peterson, a Minnesota Democrat who is chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. "We have a bill that covers all of the interests in the country."

For the first time, the bill includes funds for cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay, which would be guaranteed $690 million over 10 years, with more expected after the first five.



"This is much-needed good news for the Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a Montgomery County Democrat who had pushed for the money. The entire Maryland delegation voted for the bill.

The Senate is expected to approve the legislation by a similarly commanding margin as early as today. If the farm bill support holds, as lawmakers expect, Congress is on track to hand Bush the second veto override of his presidency.

The farm bill's constantly shifting price tag is now pegged at $289 billion over five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office's latest estimate. Over 10 years, if farm programs stay the same, the bill's estimated cost exceeds $700 billion.

More than two-thirds of the first five years' total spending is devoted to nutrition and food stamps, which the bill renames the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Most political attention, though, has targeted the agricultural payments that are the bill's true foundation.

Traditional commodity subsidies for crops such as cotton, rice, wheat and corn remain largely untouched in the new bill. The bill includes a new $3.8 billion permanent disaster payment program, deemed particularly generous for weather-stricken growers in states such as Montana and the Dakotas.

The bill offers record spending for fruits and vegetables. Depending on how it is counted, the bill would provide between $1.3 billion and $3 billion benefiting special crops through various specialty crop marketing, research and related efforts. This is at least three or four times more than the amount provided under the 2002 farm bill.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I wonder if GW will get it thru his head he is out of touch with the American majority....The backlash against his foreign nation building while doing nothing for the American people, has finally sunk into the Congressmen and Senators.....


NFU: Farm Bill Clears Senate With Overwhelming Majority


WASHINGTON (May 15, 2008) - The U.S. Senate today followed yesterday's action in the House of Representatives by approving the farm bill conference report, sending the bill to the president's desk.

The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 passed the Senate by a 81-15 vote.


"The Senate's vote demonstrates the broad support the 2008 Farm Bill has across the country," NFU President Tom Buis said. "It's taken two years to get to this point and while no piece of legislation is ever perfect this is a good bill and I am pleased to see such overwhelming support in Congress."

The 2008 Farm Bill will benefit all Americans through the following provisions:



-Permanent disaster assistance program;

-Mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL);

-Interstate shipment of state inspected meat;

-Continuation of the Milk Income Contract Loss (MILC) program with added cost of production;

-More than $900 million for specialty crops;

-$7.9 billion for conservation programs;

-More than $10 billion for domestic and international nutrition programs;

-Payment reforms by eliminating the triple entity rule and requiring direct attribution of farm program payments; and

-Increased funding for the next generation of renewable fuels.



Buis commended those in Congress that worked so hard to write the new farm legislation - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin and Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss; House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Bob Goodlatte; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley; Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel and Rep. Earl Pomeroy; Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad; House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro; and members of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees and Farm Bill Conference Committee that played such a vital role.

Despite the broad, bipartisan support in Congress, President Bush has stated he plans to veto the farm bill.

"The strong votes in both the House and Senate should serve as a clear sign to the president. Vetoing the farm bill is the wrong move," Buis said.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Good Grief, OT! Have you not noticed that there is more than 70%, maybe more than 80% of that Farm Bill budget is going for Food Stamps, WIC, and other 'food' programs????

And you STILL say "doing nothing for the American people...."!

Maybe it is time all those fussing about this farm bills join with ag producers and get tough and either demand all other industries getting subsidies give them up and we all go 'cold turkey' on it, or get off farmers backs about it and get used to paying real world prices for food rather than the maybe 10% of income US citizens currently spend for food.

There is some $200,000,000.00 in that bill for land acquisition in MT. Is that for the buffer zone for the buffalo getting out of Yellowstone and spreading diseases? If so, don't we need to ponder how many acres they will have to take away from citizens when all that fills up with more buffalo????

mrj
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Maybe it is time all those fussing about this farm bills join with ag producers and get tough and either demand all other industries getting subsidies give them up and we all go 'cold turkey' on it, or get off farmers backs about it and get used to paying real world prices for food rather than the maybe 10% of income US citizens currently spend for food.

I agree- and I've said many times before - I'd loved to see GW get his limits on subsidies- and the Corporate Interests that are reaping the major amounts from these "Farm Bills"--but this is a start...

And I also agree that the Bush/Cheney elitist buddy Corporate oil Execs/Companies should have all their subsidies jerked too...Along with those that have moved their Corporate operations offshore to avoid paying US taxs- or those that use offshore banking to get out of paying US taxs.......Senator Dorgan has a fantastic idea.......

But you don't throw the baby out with bathwater- lots of good things in the bill that was bipartisanly agreed on-- and these Congressmen know that much of this is good law politically- until GW/ or his replacement starts actually showing support for the American industry/business over the foreign nations- and giving back some states rights/national soveriegnty that has been sold out....

Lots of good in the law that have been fought for and needed for years--

-Permanent disaster assistance program;

-Mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL);

-Interstate shipment of state inspected meat;


Like I posted on here before- I would personally love to see all the subsidies defeated- and Bush's wish to extend the law until next year done-- because we would still get M-COOL- and I think in 2009 you will have a much more anti Corporate, anti- monopoly, anti global trade, pro US business, pro small farmer/rancher Congress and President--and all the anti Packer ownership rules and anti import/foreign ownership rules would be much stricter- and would pass in a 2009 Farm Bill.... We can still get them with Independent bills- with the right people in Congress and the White House-- but it might be tougher...

And I think a whole bunch of Congressmen saw the same thing- the reason for the bipartisan support.....They all are beginning to recognize that GW is an idiot and has lost touch with the direction the country wants to go..... :(
 

mrj

Well-known member
It seems quite apparent by the huge increases in welfare programs under the guise of "Farm" Bill that those lawmakers first and foremost have their eye on courting the most possible voters!

One has to wonder how the number of recipients of money, not just direct welfare payments but other funds like 'rural development' and more compare with actual farmers and and/or land owners receiving benefits under the "Farm" bill.

We all know you neither use nor admit to actual facts re. GWB and his administration and/or business involvement prior to the presidency, nor do you ever admit him to be deserving of any respect........Therefore, IMO, you also deserve no respect since you routinely bash him and others based not on their deeds but on what you PERCEIVE to be their intentions. You, nor anyone else not privileged to have ALL the information those high in government have could possibly know the whys and wherefores of decisions made and actions taken.

mrj
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mrj said:
It seems quite apparent by the huge increases in welfare programs under the guise of "Farm" Bill that those lawmakers first and foremost have their eye on courting the most possible voters!

mrj

I hope so....Thats who they are supposed to be representing...

I hope they are getting it thru their heads that the American people want their taxpayer dollars spent providing services/development in America- like foodstamps and food assistance programs to people in the US, not Iraq- and their BILLIONS spent supporting US farmers/public/voters and not tribal camel herders wandering thru Cheney's oilfields...

And if we have to squander it (like all politicians do) I'd rather it be squandered to some rich cotton farmer in the US rather than doled out to Iraqi tribal leaders for appeasement gifts to make them rich - or totally lost like the $12 BILLION the State Dept. can't account for..... :(
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Montana congressmen agree farm bill is good for Montana
By The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - It almost didn't happen at all, but much of the farm bill passed by Congress this week is good for Montana - including disaster aid for farmers, country-of-origin labeling for meats and a provision that could help head off development of privately owned land in western Montana.

Montana Sen. Max Baucus, a Democrat, was one of the bill's chief negotiators. He is a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, but he became even more involved when negotiators on the bill asked the Senate Finance Committee for extra money for the bill. Baucus is chairman of that panel.

He used that position to his advantage, insisting on the disaster provision, which is important to Montana farmers and ranchers who have suffered through drought in recent years. Members of Congress who are from other states less affected by drought did not see why the disaster provision was needed, saying it was too expensive and subject to abuse by farmers who would plant on land that shouldn't be farmed.

Baucus's insistence on the aid delayed progress on the bill. But Baucus, North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad and other supporters of the disaster aid appeased critics by reducing the cost from $5 billion in the Senate bill to $3.8 billion in the final agreement, shifting some money to nutrition and restricting the disaster program to farmers who had losses throughout their farms, and not just one-crop losses. Baucus said the program could help keep farmers in business.

"They see long days in the fields, unpredictability caused by droughts, hail storms, hurricanes and floods, and a low payoff at the end of the day," he said. "Too frequently, they decide it is not worth the effort to come back to the family farm."

The legislation also includes language by Baucus that would allow state and local governments to issue bonds to help conservation organizations buy private lands. That provision would provide incentives for non-profits to buy land from Plum Creek Timber Co., a large owner of land in Montana.

Though the language appears to be tailored for Montana, Baucus said the provision is a "model for other states" and would help keep pristine private lands out of developers' hands.

The bill also would:

• Require country-of-origin labeling for fresh meats and other foods, a provision designed to help northern ranchers compete against Canada.

• Increase loan rates and target prices for wheat, barley, oats and oilseeds, starting in 2010.

• Allow some small meat plants to sell their products across state lines, a change from current policy.

• Provide incentives to farmers and ranchers who open their land to hunters and fishermen.

• Help prevent the closure of Farm Service Agency offices.

• Boost incentives for those who grow crops for energy, including money for start-up crops of camelina, a provision inserted by Montana Sen. Jon Tester.

• Increase loans for beginning farmers and ranchers.

• Boost food stamps and other nutrition programs by $10.3 billion.


Despite all of that, Montanans will find a few disappointments in the bill.

The Senate version included a ban on meatpacker ownership of livestock for two weeks before slaughter, a priority for High Plains ranchers who own smaller ranches and hope to stem competition from larger companies. That provision passed by the Senate was stripped in negotiations.

All three members of the Montana congressional delegation - Baucus, Tester and Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg - voted for the bill. It won overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate this week, protecting the legislation from an expected veto from President Bush. He says the bill is too expensive and would not do enough to cut payments to wealthy farmers.

"Is it perfect? No," said Tester, a farmer. "But is it pretty darn good? Yes. This farm bill does things for people in production agriculture that it needs to do to make sure that they remain in business."


http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/05/17/news/state/26-farmbill.txt
 

Bill

Well-known member
Sure looks like one big subsidy doesn't it OT?

......or is this different because its American?

......an A-typical subsidy?

:roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bill said:
Sure looks like one big subsidy doesn't it OT?

......or is this different because its American?

......an A-typical subsidy?

:roll:

For some crops/products it probably is.....
 

Kato

Well-known member
• Require country-of-origin labeling for fresh meats and other foods, a provision designed to help northern ranchers compete against Canada.

So there it is, in black and white. Finally. And he doesn't even mention Mexico. Or consumer safety. Or consumer preferences. Just Canada. :roll: :roll: :roll: Isn't that interesting. :roll: :roll:

MCOOL IS A TRADE BARRIER. This is what it was always intended to be. Finally someone has admitted the truth.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Kato said:
• Require country-of-origin labeling for fresh meats and other foods, a provision designed to help northern ranchers compete against Canada.

So there it is, in black and white. Finally. And he doesn't even mention Mexico. Or consumer safety. Or consumer preferences. Just Canada. :roll: :roll: :roll: Isn't that interesting. :roll: :roll:

MCOOL IS A TRADE BARRIER. This is what it was always intended to be. Finally someone has admitted the truth.

That is a rediculous statement. You're telling us that all the consumers who supported this legislation did it for trade issues? You didn't notice that this law got a lot of legs at the same time we were finding out that China sent us a lot of crap?

"Trade Barrier" is an overused buzzword around here. Everything is a flipping trade barrier... :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Kato said:
• Require country-of-origin labeling for fresh meats and other foods, a provision designed to help northern ranchers compete against Canada.

So there it is, in black and white. Finally. And he doesn't even mention Mexico. Or consumer safety. Or consumer preferences. Just Canada. :roll: :roll: :roll: Isn't that interesting. :roll: :roll:

MCOOL IS A TRADE BARRIER. This is what it was always intended to be. Finally someone has admitted the truth.

That is a rediculous statement. You're telling us that all the consumers who supported this legislation did it for trade issues? You didn't notice that this law got a lot of legs at the same time we were finding out that China sent us a lot of crap?

"Trade Barrier" is an overused buzzword around here. Everything is a flipping trade barrier... :roll:

Yep---Except when Canadians want to keep US cattle from freely competing against theirs and going north with their "ALL US CATTLE ARE DISEASED" "health restrictions" ... :roll: :wink: :lol: :p
 

Kato

Well-known member
Shall I repeat this, and type a little slower this time?

a provision designed to help northern ranchers compete against Canada
.

What I'm saying with my ridiculous statement (hit a bit of a nerve there to have it called ridiculous? :wink: ) is that the opinion of the press, and politicians in Montana is that MCOOL was brought in for the sole intention of stopping Canadian cattle. Not for food safety or consumer knowledge of where their beef came from. Not for any other reason.

Of course it got legs with the China thing, anyone could see that. But it was the subject of a lot of lobbying a long long time before the China issues came up. Any consumers that supported this legislation would have done it strictly with China in mind, since the Canadian cattle producer is only an obsession with a certain small segment of the American population who suffer from tunnel vision regarding Canadian cattle. :roll:

A lot of American consumers probably don't even know where Canada is. I once had a tourist from Ohio ask me if Canada was a state. :shock: :shock: :shock: And once we get more than a couple of hundred miles south of the border, most people are puzzled about our Manitoba licence plate, and think it's a Montana plate that's been misspelled.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Kato, "What I'm saying with my ridiculous statement (hit a bit of a nerve there to have it called ridiculous? ) is that the opinion of the press, and politicians in Montana is that MCOOL was brought in for the sole intention of stopping Canadian cattle. "

Nonsense. The only way to stop Canadian anything is to close the border, can MCOOL in no way can do that, nor was it intended to do that. You're giving yourself waaaaay to much credit.
 

mrj

Well-known member
OT, as usual, you ignore the point: those writing and supporting this bogus "Farm" bill are courting CITY welfare recipients, WAY more generously than farmers. Do you really believe there are enough farmers for most politicians to consider in the slightest. The 'share' of farm bill costs going for welfare instead of farming now is well over 80% according to the latest numbers.

Lots of hue and cry even from farm country about the farmers with "million dollar incomes" getting farm subsidies. Forgetting, of course, that those same farmers, most of them at any rate, are most likely NOT getting much, if any, PROFIT out of that "million dollar INCOME.

Which does NOT mean I like subsidies. I would like them ended and let markets drive prices and end all the little tricks and games one has to play to qualify for payments. End subsidies to EVERY other business/industry that is getting them in this country first, then lets talk about farm subsidies. Farmers need to figure out some way to legally put a price on product rather than being price takers.

mrj
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
NCBAers must love these subsidies- as the headlines of the local papers are all agog with how your former NCBA President from up here just signed up for/ got approved for a $5 Million payoff in a Conservation Easement...

Kind of the talk of the town- how all the little guys still working their rears off ain't getting anything- but the fella that presented GW his new NCBA white stetson is.... :???:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
News from the House Agriculture Committee

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Media Contacts:
April Demert Slayton (202) 225-6872
Scott Kuschmider (202) 225-1496

Congress Sends Farm Bill to White House

WASHINGTON, DC - Today, Congress sent H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 to President Bush. The bill passed
the House of Representatives with a vote of 318-106 and passed the Senate with a vote of 81-15 last week.

"I hope that President Bush will seriously consider the many positive steps this bill takes to improve nutrition programs that are
important to so many Americans, particularly during these difficult economic times; to expand and improve conservation programs that
help farmers protect the environment; to continue and improve the safety net for farmers; to support fruit and vegetable producers
and to encourage renewable energy production from cellulosic sources," Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson said.

"We made every effort to work with Administration officials throughout the Farm Bill process, even when they showed no interest in
coming to compromise on these important issues," Chairman Peterson said. "While the President has pledged to veto the bill, I hope
that the strong, bipartisan votes in the House and Senate will demonstrate its importance to the American people and lead him to
sign it into law."

The current extension of the 2002 Farm Bill expires on Friday, May 23, 2008.
 
Top