• 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
As expected, President Bush has vetoed the $300 billion 'Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008' on Wednesday. The White House called the farm bill proposal a tax increase on regular Americans at a time of high food prices but record farm profits.

"This farm bill gives away too much money to wealthy farmers at the expense of taxpayers who foot the bill for the subsidies," Bush noted.

Today's move was the 10th veto of his presidency. It will likely to be overridden by Congress, which passed the measure with veto-proof majorities last week. To carry out an override, each chamber must call a new vote and pass the bill by a two-thirds majority.

The five-year bill would boost nutrition, land stewardship and biofuels programs. The omnibus farm bill is nearly eight months overdue.

Meanwhile, the National Farmers Union led a broad coalition of 1054 organizations today calling on Congress to override the president's farm bill veto.

"There is widespread support for the farm bill, both across this great nation and in Congress as we saw in last week's super-majority votes," NFU President Tom Buis said. "While it is disappointing to see the president's veto, we are hopeful members of Congress will listen to their constituents and override this veto."

Today's 1054-group coalition far surpasses the record 557 groups that called on Congress to pass the farm bill last week. The coalition represents farm, conservation, commodity, specialty crop, nutrition, anti-hunger and consumer groups, cooperatives, religious organizations and others that represent millions across the country.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House has overridden President Bush's veto of a $290 billion farm bill and senators soon may follow suit.

It was only hours before the House's 316-108 vote Wednesday that Bush had vetoed the five-year measure. He said it was too expensive and gave too much money to wealthy farmers when farm incomes are high.

The legislation includes election-year subsidies for farmers and food stamps for the poor — spending that lawmakers could promote when they are back in their districts over the Memorial Day weekend.

The Senate is expected to begin consideration of the bill Thursday. There are expected to be enough votes to reject the veto.

The veto was the 10th of Bush's presidency. Congress has overridden him once, on a water projects bill.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush vetoed the $300 billion farm bill on Wednesday, calling it a tax increase on regular Americans at a time of high food prices in the face of a near-certain override by Congress.

It was the 10th veto of Bush's presidency. But since it passed both houses of Congress with veto-proof majorities, his action will likely be overridden.

The president calls the legislation fiscally irresponsible and says it gives away too much money to wealthy farmers, yet his criticism didn't faze lawmakers from both parties who voted for increased crop subsidies, food stamps for the poor and other goodies to help their districts in an election year.

"At a time of high food prices and record farm income, this bill lacks program reform and fiscal discipline," Bush said in his veto statement to Congress. "It continues subsidies for the wealthy and increases farm bill spending by more than $20 billion, while using budget gimmicks to hide much of the increase."

Bush also said the bill was inconsistent with his administration's objectives in international trade negotiations, particularly when it comes to opening markets to U.S. farmers and ranchers, and that it needlessly expands the size of government.

"At a time when net farm income is projected to increase by more than $28 billion in one year, the American taxpayer should not be forced to subsidize that group of farmers who have adjusted gross incomes of up to $1.5 million," Bush said. "When commodity prices are at record highs, it is irresponsible to increase government subsidy rates for 15 crops, subsidize additional crops, and provide payments that further distort markets."

The bill's supporters reacted swiftly — and confidently — to the veto.

"Back home in Montana, we say you shouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. "We've got the votes to override the president and make the farm bill law, and that's what this Congress will do."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said lawmakers should think twice before they override Bush's veto.

"Members are going to have to think about how they will explain these votes back in their districts at a time when prices are on the rise," she said. "People are not going to want to see their taxes increase."

White House budget director Jim Nussle said Bush rejected it because it increases federal spending. He said Americans are frustrated with wasteful government spending and the funneling of taxpayer funds to pet projects. "This only worsens the frustration that they will feel," Nussle said, adding that Congress should extend the current farm bill.

About two-thirds of the bill would pay for nutrition programs such as food stamps and emergency food aid for the needy. An additional $40 billion is for farm subsidies while almost $30 billion would go to farmers to idle their land and to other environmental programs.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said that the measure will drastically increase nutrition initiatives that will help 38 million U.S. families put food on their tables. She made it clear she would have preferred smaller farm subsidies, but deferred to some Democratic colleagues looking ahead to the fall campaign.

Some Republicans criticized the mostly bipartisan and popular bill because a few home-state pet causes, including tax breaks for Kentucky racehorse owners and additional aid for salmon fishermen in the Pacific Northwest.

The bill also would:

_Boost nutrition programs, including food stamps and emergency domestic food aid, by more than $10 billion over 10 years. It would expand a program to provide fresh fruits and vegetables to schoolchildren.

_Increase subsidies for certain crops, including fruits and vegetables excluded from previous farm bills.

_Extend dairy programs.

_Increase loan rates for sugar producers.

_Urge the government to buy surplus sugar and sell it to ethanol producers for use in a mixture with corn.

_Cut a per-gallon ethanol tax credit for refiners from 51 cents to 45 cents. The credit supports the blending of fuel with the corn-based additive. More money would go to cellulosic ethanol, made from plant matter.

_Require that meats and other fresh foods carry labels with their country of origin.

_Stop allowing farmers to collect subsidies for multiple farm businesses.

_Reopen a major discrimination case against the Agriculture Department. Thousands of black farmers who missed a deadline would get a chance to file claims alleging they were denied loans or other subsidies.

_Pay farmers for weather-related farm losses from a new $3.8 billion disaster relief fund.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The veto was the 10th of Bush's presidency. Congress has overridden him once, on a water projects bill.

Interestingly- the other one was one that meant Billions $ in assistance to rural Americans and farmer/ranchers- especially in this area.....Continues to show me where King Georges prioritys lie......

As several old long time Republicans told me today- they can't believe how the Bush crew could desert the US Farmer/Rancher interests while pouring $Zillions into nation building and globalist traders interests...
Many are now questioning how " McBush" , who's trying to ride on the shirttails of GW neocon policy, will be any different :???:
I even heard some talking of (God forbid :roll: ) voting for the Dem candidate- as nothing can be as bad as what we got... :wink: :lol: :p
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
I think alot of folks will do like me..............just stay away from the voting boothes when the choices are no better than Mc Cain and Obama,why bother....................good luck
 

mrj

Well-known member
OT, are Conservation Easements subsidies????

Isn't a Conservation Easement where a person SELLS the right to develop, or to sell property to others to development?

Is the GOVERNMENT paying this, or is it Nature Conservancy or some other group?

It appears envy and jealousy are biting OT rather severely!

mrj
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mrj said:
OT, are Conservation Easements subsidies????

Isn't a Conservation Easement where a person SELLS the right to develop, or to sell property to others to development?

Is the GOVERNMENT paying this, or is it Nature Conservancy or some other group?

It appears envy and jealousy are biting OT rather severely!

mrj

Actually this one is a joint DNRC, BLM, MF&P plan (not sure if it includes Farm Bill monies/or conservation grant monies- as the hearing on it hasn't occurred yet)- that opens the land (130,000 acres- 24,000 of which is deeded) to hunting and public access- much of which is already publicly owned land (104,000 BLM or State lease) :???: ....And it pays co shares for fencing and building water supplies, and improvements, etc.....

My understanding is that this farm bill has a huge increase of this type conservation programs money available to both the state and feds to use...My only problem with these is that they usually end up going to those with the most political/lobbyist pull- like the 30,000/40,000 head corporate ranch rather than the family farm/ranch- that then use the multimillions they make to get bigger- outbid leases- and put more of those family farmer/ranchers out of business..... :( Thats been historically true in the cases I've seen locally....

And according to my source at USDA- its the direction many of these subsidies are going- under the guise of conservation...

Anyway its got a lot of farmers getting even by teasing the ranchers about when they are going to get the mailbox crease in their hats so they can wait with them for their checks.... :wink: :lol:
 

mrj

Well-known member
And this new 'direction' surprises you????

Who do you think has the real political pull.......ranchers.......or recreational/hunter people???

Again, the alternative is the real probability of development of the land into something nature lovers don't like. They have the power. They will have their way. I don't particularly like it, but if it is happening, I support the right of ranchers to make use of it if it suits their situation.

I personally do not believe those using land for recreation/hunting should expect to do so at no cost above the taxes they MAY be paying into various government entities any more than they should expect to participate in any other form of recreation at no cost other than their personal equipment they may need.

mrj
 

Latest posts

Top