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

Here's Enough Reason To Veto Farm Bill

PORKER

Well-known member
Congress deserves to reap veto of farm bill
By Jim Wooten | Tuesday, May 13, 2008, 07:24 AM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Everything most Americans —- and all fiscal conservatives —- hate about Congress is contained in a five-year, $300 billion farm bill headed to a certain presidential veto.

It’s dishonest. Congress claims that it’s only $10 billion more than the administration wants. In reality, though, said Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Chuck Conner in a conversation Monday, it’s about twice that.

“It’s about $20 billion over budget because they have managed to hide the true cost of the bill quite a bit.” They are doing it, he explained, by moving payouts beyond the time frame used to calculate costs while moving up revenues from things like crop insurance.

Congress did the same thing last year in projecting the cost for the State Children’s Health Insurance program. Spending on that bill, which the president vetoed, was projected to go from $5.6 billion per year to $13.9 billion in 2012, and then —- as Congress employed the game it now plays on the farm bill —- would “drop” 69 percent in 2013 to $7.8 billion and further to $4.8 billion in 2014. Dishonest.

To hide the true cost of the farm bill, “they take a program that they know has to be funded, like disaster money and a couple of others that they know they will have to come back to extend,” said Conner.

In addition to dishonesties, it contains outrages, one after another. An example is the sugar program, which costs taxpayers in excess of $2 billion annually. “The sugar program is essentially a producer cartel run out of Washington,” said Chris Edwards, director of tax policy at the Cato Institute.

“Many people thought you could not get more heavily involved than the government already is under the current program,” said Conner. That program exists solely to benefit sugar beet producers, mostly in Minnesota, Michigan, California, Idaho and North Dakota, and sugar cane producers, mostly in Florida and Louisiana.

It’s designed to keep sugar prices high by requiring that 85 percent of the sugar sold in America be produced here. Taxpayers buy sugar at roughly twice the world price and, heretofore, stored it for sale back when supplies were tight. “This bill says, ‘no, you can’t store sugar, you have to sell it immediately for ethanol,’ ” said Conner.

The value of sugar for ethanol production is about 2 cents per pound. The world price of sugar is about 12.5 cents per pound. “We are buying it at 23 cents a pound and are required to sell it for 2 cents a pound,” explained Conner. “What kind of deal is that for U.S. taxpayers?”

Lousy, of course. Outrageous, certainly. Insane public policy. “I am not talking about a few million bucks here,” said Conner. “This is hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Outrages are evident, too, in a much-publicized provision that would give the owners of thoroughbred racehorses a $93 million depreciation write-off. It is a first, said Conner, the first time that a farm bill has been used to write a tax bill. “These are provisions that would never have passed on their own.”

Outrageous, too, is the provision that suddenly appeared requiring taxpayers to spend $200 million to buy land in Montana that has no farm-related value.

Most outrageous of all is the refusal of a Congress that denied $600 stimulus checks to some in the middle class but now refuses to expunge even the wealthiest of farmers from the dole. The administration proposed to start weaning farmers whose nonfarm income exceeded $200,000. Congress raised that to $500,000 or $1 million for married couples. For those whose income is solely from farming, it’s $750,000 and $1.5 million. “We only targeted the top 2 percent” of farmers, said Conner. As rewritten, “this is going to deny benefits to virtually no one in America,” he said.

“Scarce tax dollars are hard to come by. The notion that people whose annual income is in the million-dollar range, the idea that we have got to use tax dollars to help them, is beyond explanation. We should say to them that ‘there is an American Dream out there and you are living it, but don’t expect any more tax dollars from people who are struggling to find dollars to put gas in the tank.’ “

Within days, Congress will pass this bill. It’s atrocious legislation deserving of the quick veto it’s certain to get.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
While I don't support a bunch of the subsidies- and would have loved to see GW get his wishes on the payment caps-- I can't see how GW thinks vetoing this bill is going to accomplish anything in the long run except P.O.ing a bunch of farmers- and giving the Dems a strong arguing point about how GW can spend $Billions in Iraq for Iraqis-but nothing in this country for US farmers or feeding the US poor...I can hear Baucus right now tearing Repubs apart because GW doesn't believe in setting up a permanent disaster assistance fund for farmers/ranchers--which in this area is a huge issue...

In fact in ways I would like to see it vetoed...Because then Congress would take up the issue again in 2009- and when they do there will be a lot less of the old Big Corporate backed bought out good old boy Senators and Congressmen in office (and possibly the White House)- and a good chance for a lot more pro US workers/business legislators as new members--which may help a great deal in getting thru some of the anti- packer ownership and some of the monopolization laws that they left out- as well as much more stringent guidelines/oversight on imports....

They'll probably go wilder with the conservation and food assistance programs-and programs like the above-- but that might be worth the price to get some of the laws needed on the books that support the long term viability of family farmer/ranchers...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bush issues statement on farm bill veto, calls for current law extension

By Janie Gabbett on 5/14/2008 for Meatingplace.com


President Bush on Tuesday issued a statement explaining his decision to veto the 2007 farm bill once it is passed by Congress and again called for a one-year extension of current law. Bush said the current farm bill proposal "undermines our ability to open foreign markets to American agricultural goods."

Here is the full text of his statement:

In January 2007, I was hopeful that leaders in Washington could come together on a good farm bill. At that time, my Administration had completed more than fifty listening sessions across the country and developed a reform-minded farm bill based on the thousands of comments received. Our proposal would make wise use of the people's money by reforming farm programs, funding emerging priorities and providing a safety-net that better targets benefits for farmers.

I am deeply disappointed in the conference report filed today as it falls far short of the proposal my Administration put forward. If this bill makes it to my desk, I will veto it.

Today's farm economy is very strong and that is something to celebrate. It is also an appropriate time to better target subsidies and put forth real reform. Farm income is expected to exceed the 10-year average by fifty percent this year, yet Congress' bill asks American taxpayers to subsidize the incomes of married farmers who earn $1.5 million per year. I believe doing so at a time of record farm income is irresponsible and jeopardizes America's support for necessary farm programs.

Congress claims that this bill increases spending by $10 billion, but the real cost is nearly $20 billion when you include actual government spending that will occur if this bill becomes law. Instead of fully offsetting the increased spending, the bill resorts to a variety of gimmicks, such as pushing commodity payments outside the budget window. Adding nearly $20 billion in additional costs to the current ten-year spending level of approximately $600 billion is excessive, especially when net farm income is at a record high and food prices are on the rise. My Administration clearly identified numerous reforms as essential to justify even a $10 billion increase in spending, yet this bill includes none of those reforms in full.

Crop prices have averaged a twenty percent increase since just last year. Still, Congress wants to raise payment rates for most crops and create new subsidies which can be triggered even at very high prices. The bill fails to stop the practice of collecting subsidies even when crops are sold later at a higher price; it restricts our ability to redirect food aid dollars for emergency use in the midst of a global food crisis; and it falls short of the Administration's conservation proposals. By increasing trade-distorting subsidies, the bill undermines our ability to open foreign markets to American agricultural goods. The bill creates an egregious new sugar subsidy program that will keep sugar prices high for domestic consumers, while making taxpayers subsidize a handful of sugar growers. These are just a few of the reasons why I cannot support this bill.

In the absence of a good farm bill, I call on Congress to extend current law for at least one year. The Administration's reform-minded proposal would be preferable to current law, but in light of the bill produced by conferees an extension is now the better policy for American agriculture and American taxpayers. It is a far superior option than supporting a bill that increases farm subsidy rates, spends too much and fails to reform farm programs for the future.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Farm-bill mistake creates mess in Washington
Paperwork blunder has lawmakers, White House crying foul
By Ruth Mantell, MarketWatch
Last update: 11:54 p.m. EDT May 21, 2008Print E-mail RSS Disable Live Quotes
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- A bureaucratic paperwork mistake reportedly has lawmakers and the White House scrambling to sort out Wednesday's presidential veto of the $290 billion farm bill and subsequent override by the House.
The Associated Press reported late Wednesday that while the Senate had been expected to quickly follow suit on the override, action was stalled when it was discovered Congress left out a 34-page section of the bill when lawmakers sent the massive measure to the White House. As a result, President Bush vetoed a different bill from the one Congress passed, raising questions whether the eventual law would be unconstitutional, the AP noted.
According to the report, House Democrats hoped to pass the entire bill, again, on Thursday under expedited rules usually reserved for unopposed legislation, with the Senate expected to follow. The correct version would then be sent to Bush under a new bill number for another expected veto.
Lawmakers also will have to pass an extension of current farm law, which expires Friday. The AP quoted Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., as saying, "We will have to repass the whole thing, as will the Senate. We can't let the farm bill just die."
"We are trying to understand the ramifications of this congressional farm bill foul-up. We haven't found a precedent for a congressional blunder of this magnitude," Scott Stanzel, a White House spokesman, told the AP. "It looks like it may be back to square one for them."
Which bill?
Late Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted to override President Bush's veto of the farm bill, as was widely expected. The 316-108 vote came hours after Bush vetoed the bill, despite widespread support in Congress. The administration has claimed the bill is bloated with subsidies for crops and wealthy farmers.
"At a time of high food prices and record farm income, this bill lacks program reform and fiscal discipline," Bush said. "When commodity prices are at record highs, it is irresponsible to increase government subsidy rates."
Before the problem with the bill was discovered, Dana Perino, White House spokeswoman, acknowledged at a Wednesday press event that an override was likely. Last week, both chambers passed the $289 billion, five-year farm bill with margins that easily achieved the two-thirds of votes necessary to override a veto. The farm bill would increase funds for nutrition programs, and authorize subsidies for farmers and crops, among other provisions.
Bush has criticized the bill's crop subsidies, as well as proposed income limits for farmers that would allow individuals with farm income of up to $750,000, or married couples with farm income of up to $1.5 million, to receive direct payments. The president has proposed lowering the cap to $200,000.
Perino said Wednesday that lawmakers who voted to override the veto would have "to think about how they will explain these votes back in their districts at a time when prices are on the rise."
Wednesday's error was made while printing the legislation on parchment before sending it to Bush, according to the AP.
Democratic Rep. Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, told the AP the section in question -- which deals with trade and international food aid programs -- was never printed. Indeed, the final, 628-page version of the bill jumps straight from "Title II" on conservation programs to "Title IV" on nutrition programs.
Democrats originally proposed bringing up and passing the missing section separately and sending that to Bush, thus allowing the entire measure to become law. But, the AP reported, Republicans argued that might not be constitutional because Bush actually vetoed a version that Congress never considered.
The farm bill devotes about two-thirds of its funds to nutrition programs such as food stamps and healthy school snacks.
Ruth Mantell is a MarketWatch reporter based in Washington.
 

Latest posts

Top