On Wednesday the Congress passed their five year Farm and Agriculture Appropriations Bill. The President had threatened to veto it, but alas, the vote is veto-proof. The Bill combines food relief for the poor with massive government subsidies for rich farmers (agribusiness) who don't need them (and which we, the taxpayers, provide).
The Wall Street Journal had previously editorialized against the bill, and I was glad to see that both the Washington Post and NY Times had editorials this morning attacking it.
Here's the Post editorial, with excerpts below Farm Bill Chestnuts - washingtonpost.com
... about two-thirds of the $289 billion bill will go to nutrition programs for low-income Americans, including about $10 billion in necessary increases. Corporate welfare for agribusiness accounts for less than half the price tag. But where does the Constitution say that Congress has to put aid to the poor in the same bill with tens of billions in aid to the middle class and rich? Congress does it that way so that rural members can get urban and suburban members to sign off on lavish farm subsidies they would otherwise reject.
The farm bill is the epitome of old-style Washington politics. A small number of farm-state senators from both parties demanded its most wasteful provisions, such as guaranteed payments to big cotton and rice growers and "disaster relief" for farmers in arid areas. ... The bill includes only the most tepid reforms, which, though trumpeted by the bill's advocates, deny benefits to only a tiny handful of farms.
While none of the presidential candidates left the campaign trail to vote on the bill, one -- Republican Sen. John McCain -- unequivocally opposed it. It may not be terribly surprising that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) hailed the bill's passage during a campaign swing through South Dakota. It's a bit more disappointing to hear Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), running on a promise to oppose politics as usual, say he applauded the bill. In Iowa last August, Mr. Obama said, "When the farm bill comes up in the Senate, I will be fighting to tell all those agribusiness lobbyists that they won't be able to count on the multimillion-dollar subsidies they always get because we're going to put family farmers first." Yesterday, he said, "With so much at stake, we cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good." On this issue, Mr. McCain, not his likely Democratic opponent, was the apostle of change.
Here's the NYT editorial A Disgraceful Farm Bill - New York Times
Congress has approved a $307 billion farm bill that rewards rich farmers who do not need the help while doing virtually nothing to help the world’s hungry, who need all the help they can get.
>>>>>>
The bill is an inglorious piece of work tailored to the needs of big agriculture and championed by not only the usual bipartisan farm state legislators but also the Democratic leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. ...
The bill includes the usual favors like the tax break for racehorse breeders pushed by Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate minority leader. But the greater and more embarrassing defect is that the bill perpetuates the old subsidies for agriculture at a time when the prices that farmers are getting for big row crops like corn, soybeans and wheat have never been better. Net farm income is up 50 percent.
>>>>>>
Indeed, even the increases in conservation spending are not nearly as generous as advertised. President Bush asked for $4 billion more than Congress provided. He also complained, rightly, that House and Senate conferees had killed a program to conserve rare prairie grasslands while narrowing two programs that paid farmers to protect wetlands and wildlife habitat.
With few Republicans rushing to the President’s side, the House and Senate both produced what amounted to veto-proof majorities, assuming they hold up. Mr. Bush should veto the bill anyway. Bad legislation is bad legislation.
Congressional business as usual. Too bad. But glad to see McCain opposed it (but unfrotuantely not enough to stop campaigning and get to Washington to vote against it!).
Recent Comments