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

Conner promises veto of Senate farm bill

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Conner promises veto of Senate farm bill
by Peter Shinn


Just minutes into the U.S. Senate’s debate on the next farm bill, acting U.S. Ag Secretary Chuck Conner held a press conference to blast the measure that emerged from the Senate Ag Committee on October 25th. And Conner made clear he can’t advise President Bush to sign the Senate farm bill in its current form.

"The President's senior advisors will recommend a veto of the combined Senate Finance Committee and Senate Ag Committee and farm bill," Conner intoned.

The timing of Conner's announcement made for an odd juxtaposition of public farm bill events. At almost the exact same moment that Ag Committee Chairman Tom Harkin of Iowa was describing the Senate farm bill as a "kind of a grand compromise... so that the entire country benefits from this," Conner was characterizing the Senate Farm bill as a measure that "continues a defective safety net, contains little real reform and uses tax increases and budget gimmicks that deserve to be funded in an honest fashion."

Farm bills almost always enjoy bi-partisan support, and Ranking Senate Agriculture Committee Republican Saxby Chambliss described the bill Tuesday as "a good legislative proposal." Harkin himself said he'd "never seen a partisan fight on a farm bill."

But the veto threat may change that. GOP Lawmakers may have to choose between loyalty to the party and support of the current farm bill, which many mainline ag and commodity groups see as generally favorable. Still, Conner told Brownfield his goal isn't to scuttle the farm bill process, but to force Congress into essentially re-crafting the measure.

"I believe we do still have the opportunity, both in the Senate floor and in conference, to change this bill to reflect good farm policy," Conner asserted. "The changes, I will tell you, do need to be significant changes, because these are major problems."

Specifically, Conner said the Senate farm bill had to address the issue of beneficial interest in commodity program payments, further tighten farm program payment limits and must not raise target prices or loan rates. And Conner reiterated several times his desire to work closely with Congress to produce a bill that President Bush could sign.

Harkin, in a statement issued after Conner's remarks, said he was "concerned" about Conner's remarks. Harkin added he hoped "the White House will work cooperatively with the House and the Senate to craft a farm bill the President will sign."
 

Tex

Well-known member
But the veto threat may change that. GOP Lawmakers may have to choose between loyalty to the party and support of the current farm bill, which many mainline ag and commodity groups see as generally favorable. Still, Conner told Brownfield his goal isn't to scuttle the farm bill process, but to force Congress into essentially re-crafting the measure.


While Conner tries his best to recharacterize the Farm Bill and the administration's opposition to it, the real reason he (and packers) want it derailed has to do with Title 10 protections of producers.

The corporate infiltration into our political and legal system goes directly to the top, as Conner's opposition shows.

It is real funny how the USDA's Johanns tried to actually write the new farm bill, taking that responsibility out of the legislative branch and putting it into an executive branch. This was unprecedented and was successfully rebuffed by the legislative branch.

This administration wants the power in our democracy to be bundled into the executive branch, which is much easier to control by the corporate elites, than all the Senators and Congressmen who more closely represent the people.

This morning's hearings on Yahoo clearly points out that corporate interests often do not have morality factored in. We have to make sure that it does.


Make no mistake, our democracy is being challenged. This while the president tries to focus attention on "democracy" in other parts of the world. Can you say HYPOCRITE?
 

Latest posts

Top