Congress Goes Hog Wild With Farm Bill

[Etta Place]

Editorial
Oink! Oink! Oink! Congress goes hog wild with farm bill
The Washington DC Examiner Newspaper
2008-05-08 07:00:00.0
Current rank: # 2 of 8,401

WASHINGTON -

There will be unmelted snowballs in Hades before this Congress agrees to cut out the pork in the farm bill headed for a vote within the next week, so President Bush should get his veto pen ready. At an estimated cost of at least $285 billion over 10 years, this will be the most expensive and regressive farm bill ever. Given how Congress uses budget gimmicks these days to hide the real costs of many of the bills it approves, that $285 billion figure is almost certainly too low. If there was a truth-in-spending law with real teeth in it, this Congress would have been hauled to the pokey long ago.

On Tuesday, four reformist House members wrote a letter explaining that the devil is in the details of the farm bill.

Democrats Ron Kind of Wisconsin and Jim Cooper of Tennessee joined Republicans Jeff Flake of Arizona and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin in pointing out that the cap on direct payments to landowners — which are based on total acreage rather than land actually used to grow real food — would rise from $40,000 to $50,000 per person. And remember those infamous subsidies that have gone to “farmers” like former ABC newsman Sam Donaldson, CNN founder Ted Turner and banker David Rockefeller? The farm bill allows subsidies for people making as much as $950,000 annually, and nearly $2 million for married couples.

Bush proposed limiting such subsidies to people making less than $200,000, then offered to compromise with a $500,000 annual cap. Congress refused.

Clearly, Congress is determined to undo what little remains of past farm program reforms. The direct payments mentioned earlier are one example: Under the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill, the payments were to replace crop subsidies. But when subsequent Republican-controlled Congresses resurrected the subsidies, they kept the direct payments, turning an “either/or” proposition into a doubly expensive “both/and” deal. Similarly, in 2002, Congress approved a crop insurance program to protect farmers from natural disasters.

The present bill keeps the insurance program, but adds retroactive disaster relief for crop losses in 2005, 2006 and 2007 — which the 2002 crop insurance program supposedly already covered. The bill likely headed for Bush’s desk also expands corn ethanol biofuel subsidies, even as food costs spiral, and adds new price supports for sugar. This bill is a sweet deal for agribusiness conglomerates, alternative energy profiteers, and wealthy absentee farmers who’ve never sat on a John Deere tractor, but it will leave a bitter taste for taxpayers for years to come.

Oink! Oink! Oink! Congress goes hog wild with farm bill - Examiner.com


I can see the government helping out small farmers, but farm subsidies have become so distorted and are designed to keep a powerful constituency happy - agribusiness.

[rockerz71]

Why should the government help small farmers?

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by rockerz71

Why should the government help small farmers?

I don't necessarily favor them. I was just saying that I could see maybe helping small farmers but not these huge factory farms that don't even need it. Farming is very risky business and small farmers usually don't have a cushion against bad crop years. Plus, I think it's good for the all of us to set aside farm land and protect it against development.

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by rockerz71

Why should the government help small farmers?

Small farmers in a time of need, absolutely should be helped IMO. There aren't that many small family farms left though. All farmers are doing pretty well at the moment unless they're asleep at the wheel.

[rockerz71]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

Small farmers in a time of need, absolutely should be helped IMO. There aren't that many small family farms left though. All farmers are doing pretty well at the moment unless they're asleep at the wheel.

Whats so special about small farmers that they should get assistance when they aren't doing well?

[east_stingray]

Originally Posted by rockerz71

Whats so special about small farmers that they should get assistance when they aren't doing well?

I'm not sure, but I think that in addition, whenever my grades start to slip, the government should step in and add points to my score. After all, I might not make it if they don't step in and help in my times of need.

[robinsre]

Originally Posted by east_stingray

I'm not sure, but I think that in addition, whenever my grades start to slip, the government should step in and add points to my score. After all, I might not make it if they don't step in and help in my times of need.

Ooh! let me on that band-wagon.

Also instead of having to take out a student LOAN to go to college, I think the government should step in and foot the bill for me...ya know, times are tough I might not make it without them.

[one-eyed-fatman]

Originally Posted by rockerz71

Whats so special about small farmers that they should get assistance when they aren't doing well?

What's so special about rich farmers getting assistance when they are doing very well?

[Dutter]

When the government takes money from citizen 'A' and gives it to citizen 'B' , for whatever stupid (oops, I meant 'compassionate') reason they come up with, it is WRONG, unconstitutional and should not be tolerated.

You name the program....when one guy has to pay for the stuff of another guy, at the point of the government's gun, it is immoral. It's stealing.

Our founding father's would be ashamed of us..........................

jd

[one-eyed-fatman]

The farm bill allows subsidies for people making as much as $950,000 annually, and nearly $2 million for married couples.

Lots a pork in this bill as well. And the ones in charge of the subsidies, Ya baby they getting farm subsidies too. Where's franky when you need him to say something stupid?