Change You Can't Believe In

[Tigermike 3,055]

Change You Can't Believe In

May 22, 2008

President Bush vetoed the $300 billion farm bill yesterday, and a bipartisan throng in the House promptly voted to override. The Senate is expected to follow shortly. Every one of these Congressional worthies purports to be an advocate of "change."

Yet you couldn't write a piece of legislation that more thoroughly represents the Beltway status quo than this one. In every way imaginable, and even a few more, it repeats and compounds the spendthrift errors of previous farm bills.

Since the last farm bill in 2002, the price of cotton is up 105%, soybeans 164%, corn 169% and wheat 256%. Yet when Mr. Bush proposed the genuine change of limiting farm welfare to those earning less than $200,000 a year, he was laughed out of town. The bill purports to limit subsidies to those earning a mere $750,000, but loopholes and spousal qualifications make it closer to $2.5 million. As Barack Obama likes to say, it's time Washington worked for "the middle class," which apparently includes millionaire corn and sugar farmers.

Another purported change is the arrival of "fiscal discipline," in Nancy Pelosi's favorite phrase from the 2006 campaign. Yet it turns out this farm extravaganza may bust federal budget targets even more than we thought a week ago. That's because the new price supports – the guaranteed floor payments farmers receive for their crops – have been raised to match this year's record prices.

The USDA reports that if crop prices fall from these highs to their norm over the next five years, farm payments will surge. For example, if corn prices return to $3.25 a bushel from today's $6, farmers would get $10 billion a year in support payments. If bean prices fall to their norm, they'd get $4 billion. Thus, if farm prices stay high, consumers face higher grocery bills and farmers get rich. If farm prices fall, taxpayers kick in the difference and farmers still get rich.

Sugar producers also make out like Beltway bandits, receiving the difference between the world price of sugar, which is now $12 per pound, and the guaranteed price of about $21 per pound. That's a roughly 75% subsidy for already wealthy cane growers and a nice payoff for the $3 million they contribute to House candidates each year.

All of this is a status quo that both political parties can believe in. More than a few liberal Democrats are privately embarrassed by this corporate welfare spectacle. But they've been mollified by Speaker Pelosi, who spent the last week assuring her left that the bill also includes another $10.4 billion for food stamps and nutrition programs. This entitlement expansion comes only days after the Congressional Budget Office reported that paying the bills for existing entitlements could require tax rates to climb to 80% in the future. Yes we can!

House Republicans are equally as complicit, despite their claims of having found fiscal religion after 2006. About half of them voted to override a Republican President. GOP leaders refused to whip against the bill, and two of them – Roy Blunt of Missouri and Adam Putnam of Florida – even voted for it. These are the same House Republicans who last week unveiled their new slogan, "The Change You Deserve."

Which brings us to Mr. Obama, who says he supported the bill though he wasn't around to vote for it. One of the Illinois Senator's major campaign themes is that he has no truck with corporate lobbyists, but the farm bill is the ultimate lobbyist triumph. Every special interest gets massaged. Just as Mr. Bush bent too far to GOP spending in his first term, Mr. Obama's farm bill support suggests he'd bow to the Pelosi Democrats on Capitol Hill.

To his credit, John McCain opposes the bill, and this week he gave a speech attacking it. Yet he's also missed an opportunity to make his opposition part of a larger case that he represents change from both parties in Washington. He could also turn the tables on Mr. Obama's claim that he better represents middle-class taxpayers. Failing that kind of campaign, the farm bill suggests that the only real change coming to Washington is more of what's in taxpayer pockets.

link

[Justin5 20]

Facts about the 'Farm Bill' not many people know, or choose to ignore (I can't take full credit for these, as some of this was written by coworkers on mine):

Nearly three-fourths of the Farm Bill, an additional $10.4 billion in new spending, goes to nutrition programs that help 38 million American families afford healthy food.

It updates the food stamp program to reflect the current state of our economy, as proposed by the Bush Administration. These critical food stamp provisions will help about 11 million people by 2012. Households with children receive 77% of food stamp benefits.

Helps schools provide healthy snacks to students, with $1 billion for free fresh fruits and vegetables.

Provides much-needed support to emergency feeding organizations, such as food banks, food pantries, and soup kitchens by increasing funding for TEFAP by $1.25 billion – with $50 million for immediate shortages at food pantries.

Reforms disaster assistance to make it a permanent, paid for program for farmers with crops stricken by natural disasters such as drought and flood.

Every penny of new spending in the bill is fully paid for, to prevent further increases to the national debt, which has skyrocketed since 2001, contributed to our economic downturn, and mortgaged our future.

Commodity programs account for less than 13% of the Farm Bill—and decline by $60 billion over the next ten years compared to the last Farm Bill in 2002.

The bill reduces direct farm payments by $300 million; the Administration proposed increasing these fixed payments by $5.5 billion, even though they are paid out regardless of farm prices.

It cuts federal payments to crop insurance companies that are making windfall profits due to higher crop prices by $5.7 billion.

Contrary to Administration claims, marketing loan and target price supports do not increase government payments at a time of record income under the bill. They pay farmers only if prices drop.

Conservation programs are boosted by $7.9 billion, which reduce soil erosion, enhance water supplies, improve water and air quality, increase wildlife habitat and reduce damage caused by floods and other natural disasters.

The Farm bill provides $60 million, on top of the existing Food for Peace international aid program, to purchase emergency food aid overseas and provides an additional $84 million for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program for infant, child, and school nutrition programs in underdeveloped countries.

[otterinbham 0]

Facts about the 'Farm Bill' not many people know, or choose to ignore (I can't take full credit for these, as some of this was written by coworkers on mine):

Nearly three-fourths of the Farm Bill, an additional $10.4 billion in new spending, goes to nutrition programs that help 38 million American families afford healthy food.

It updates the food stamp program to reflect the current state of our economy, as proposed by the Bush Administration. These critical food stamp provisions will help about 11 million people by 2012. Households with children receive 77% of food stamp benefits.

Helps schools provide healthy snacks to students, with $1 billion for free fresh fruits and vegetables.

Provides much-needed support to emergency feeding organizations, such as food banks, food pantries, and soup kitchens by increasing funding for TEFAP by $1.25 billion – with $50 million for immediate shortages at food pantries.

Reforms disaster assistance to make it a permanent, paid for program for farmers with crops stricken by natural disasters such as drought and flood.

Every penny of new spending in the bill is fully paid for, to prevent further increases to the national debt, which has skyrocketed since 2001, contributed to our economic downturn, and mortgaged our future.

Commodity programs account for less than 13% of the Farm Bill—and decline by $60 billion over the next ten years compared to the last Farm Bill in 2002.

The bill reduces direct farm payments by $300 million; the Administration proposed increasing these fixed payments by $5.5 billion, even though they are paid out regardless of farm prices.

It cuts federal payments to crop insurance companies that are making windfall profits due to higher crop prices by $5.7 billion.

Contrary to Administration claims, marketing loan and target price supports do not increase government payments at a time of record income under the bill. They pay farmers only if prices drop.

Conservation programs are boosted by $7.9 billion, which reduce soil erosion, enhance water supplies, improve water and air quality, increase wildlife habitat and reduce damage caused by floods and other natural disasters.

The Farm bill provides $60 million, on top of the existing Food for Peace international aid program, to purchase emergency food aid overseas and provides an additional $84 million for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program for infant, child, and school nutrition programs in underdeveloped countries.

Ah. So what you're saying is that, in the course of approving an immense $300,000,000,000 welfare project to agribusiness, the same economic sector that realized a 57% increase in net profits last year, we might actually have about $10-$15 billion in possibly expenditures. Yeah, that makes all the sense in the world.

In a rare show of agreement, both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal shouted down their disapproval of this bill. Yet the Congress, including your man Obama, blithely voted for it. What a freaking betrayal of the American people this sham is.

[Justin5 20]

Let me see here....75% of 300 is.....10-15 as you say?

Maybe I'm missing something in your response. I agree the bill is not perfect, but there are parts of the bill that are extremely important to the country, especially now.

Also, who cares what the press thinks of it? I am giving you facts about the bill.

Finally, Obama, is not my man. I may vote for him, I may not. I just don't want incorrect information to be passed around.

[otterinbham 0]

Let me see here....75% of 300 is.....10-15 as you say?

Maybe I'm missing something in your response. I agree the bill is not perfect, but there are parts of the bill that are extremely important to the country, especially now.

Also, who cares what the press thinks of it? I am giving you facts about the bill.

Finally, Obama, is not my man. I may vote for him, I may not. I just don't want incorrect information to be passed around.

Sorry that you've been so bamboozled.

It doesn't matter if it's 99%. It's yet another welfare program designed to create yet another market for agribusiness to the tune of $300 billion dollars, no matter how the money is allocated. And, given that a large proportion goes to nutrition programs, why are we calling it a Farm Bill at all? Oh, because all these programs are nothing more than a fig leaf to funnel money to agribusiness.

But let's just run down the list at some of the USDA Grade A Pork that's in this abomination:

1) Tax breaks for racehorse owners. Yep. Those owners of thoroughbreds need every dime we can give them. They're in desperate straits, I tell you. If things get any worse for them, they may actually have to take an airline to watch Gandy Dancer run the Preakness, rather than enjoy the comfort of their private jet.

2) $35 billion for farm subsidies. What? Farms are more profitable than ever, witnessing last year's stellar profits. If anything we need fewer subsidies, not more.

3) Extra benefits for fruit and vegetable growers. Why I didn't realize that they were struggling so. Oh, they're not? Well let's give them money anyway.

4) A nice little extra subsidy for prairie grass ethanol, yet another pork barrel project that has already driven up the cost of food prices. So if one government program is already driving up the cost of food, what do we do? Create another federal program. Yeah, that's the ticket.

5) $38 billion in nutrition programs for the poor. Let's see. The biggest health problems in our poor today stem from obesity, not malnutrition. Program after program has been tried to get the indigent population to eat right. Program after program has failed. I know that "When at first you don't succeed, try, try, again" has a nice ring to it. But not when you're spending billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars.

6) Endangered species programs such as the red cockaded woodpecker. What? Are we supposed to eat those? How on earth did that make it onto a Farm Bill?

[OldNewby 27]

Let me see here....75% of 300 is.....10-15 as you say?

Maybe I'm missing something in your response. I agree the bill is not perfect, but there are parts of the bill that are extremely important to the country, especially now.

Also, who cares what the press thinks of it? I am giving you facts about the bill.

Finally, Obama, is not my man. I may vote for him, I may not. I just don't want incorrect information to be passed around.

$300 billion farm bill

Nearly three-fourths of the Farm Bill, an additional $10.4 billion in new spending, goes to nutrition programs that help 38 million American families afford healthy food.

So… it's a $300 billion farm bill?

And… 75% of $300 billion = an additional $10.4 billion in new spending?

Washington, we have a problem. Bad math… or a poorly constructed sentence?

[Justin5 20]

that should be AND an additional 10.4.

Whatever.

[Auburn85 432]

i didn't look in to which side of the political spectrum this website supports. this piece is from a month ago, so maybe the bill was altered since then.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/04/farm_..._a_disaster.php

Farm Bill Disaster for Taxpayers

Washington – The Club for Growth condemned the Farm Bill deal as a disaster for taxpayers and urged all members of Congress to vote against the bill.

Last week, the House and Senate conferees released the details of a Farm Bill deal and it doesn’t look promising. The bill perpetuates much of the waste and misuse of taxpayer dollars contained in the previous farm bills. Despite promises of reform, the Farm Bill deal contains no meaningful reform of wasteful farm subsidies and piles on additional spending. These include:

Billions of dollars in direct payments to farmers earning record-high incomes during the biggest commodity boom in decades

No limit on on-farm income in order to qualify for subsidies. This means taxpayers will continue to fund subsidies to wealthy farmers.

A $4 billion spending boost above the current baseline for conservation programs

$10.3 billion in new spending on nutrition

New tax breaks for Cellulosic ethanol and timber industries

A continuation of ethanol subsidies that contribute to sky-rocketing food prices while we restrict imports of low-cost ethanol precursors

Ongoing incentives to grow the wrong crops on bad land in bad weather, only leading to economic distortions and greater conservation pressures

These egregious farm subsidies prevent any meaningful progress on the DOHA Round for world free trade negotiations

A $350 million tax break for race horse owners

did the race horse tax break get shafted from the bill or is it still in there?

[Justin5 20]

i didn't look in to which side of the political spectrum this website supports. this piece is from a month ago, so maybe the bill was altered since then.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/04/farm_..._a_disaster.php

A $350 million tax break for race horse owners

did the race horse tax break get shafted from the bill or is it still in there?

Just one more click would have answered you question.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/about.php

[CCTAU 3,350]

So the farm bill is welfare disguised. Thanks for clearing that up.

People don't need healthy food, they need to get off their ass and work. The same foods our fathers ate but without the couch potato and gimme attitude would suffice.

[Tigermike 3,055]

The question now is: what were the dims trying to hide by pushing this bill at this time?

It seems to be that the dims are saying that Congress can hide legislation from the President.

Do you think that is right for them to try that?

According to House minority whip Roy Blunt, the Democrats made more than one mistake in failing to include a large section of the farm bill Congress sent to the White House. They argued that the omission did not make the bill invalid, and that Congress can choose to send only portions of bills for a presidential signature or veto.

Wouldn't you say this is a rather creative view of open government?

Democrats were at the least underhanded and worse, possibly and potentially unconstitutional with their maneuvering.

House Overrides Veto of Farm Bill

Glitch May Force Repeat of the Process

By Jonathan Weisman and Dan Morgan

Washington Post Staff Writers

Thursday, May 22, 2008; Page A01

The House easily overrode President Bush's veto of a $307 billion farm bill last night in what appeared to be the most significant legislative rebuff of Bush's presidency. But a legislative glitch is likely to force embarrassed Democratic leaders to pass the bill all over again today -- and prompt a second showdown with Bush next month.

The problem came when a House clerk mistakenly dropped a whole section dealing with trade policy from the 673-page bill before it was sent to the White House. Republican leaders argued last night that the House had overriden a veto on legislation that had never actually passed the House and Senate. For the sake of legislative integrity, Democratic aides said, Congress is likely to start the whole process again.

Republican leadership aides last night called it a "monumental Democrat screw-up," but it was Republican disarray that was on display for much of the evening. The bill pitted Republican leader against Republican leader as they argued publicly over another lapse in their commitment to fiscal discipline. As with the first veto override of the Bush presidency, which saved the Water Resources Development Act last year, lawmakers of both parties stepped in to save a law that promised to shower billions of dollars on key constituents and home-district programs.

"The vote on the farm bill has definitely been a challenge, if you look at it as regaining our fiscal brand," said Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), a member of the GOP leadership.

At midday, Bush vetoed the bill, declaring: "Americans sent us to Washington to achieve results and be good stewards of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This bill violates that fundamental commitment." Bush objected to subsidies for wealthy agribusinesses at a time of high food prices and record farm income.

Hours later, the House voted 316 to 108 to override the veto, with 100 Republicans siding with 216 Democrats. The Senate voted last week, 81 to 15, to approve the farm bill.

"The principal purpose of agriculture policy in the United States is to guarantee we're not as dependent on other countries for our food as we are for our fuel," declared House Republican Conference Chairman Adam H. Putnam (Fla.). He broke not only with Bush but also with House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), who opposes a bill he has called wasteful.

For House Republicans, grappling with plunging political fortunes that include three consecutive special election losses in traditionally GOP districts, the farm bill was particularly divisive. Republican leaders have encouraged the rank and file to help the party regain the mantle of small-government fiscal discipline, a theme of the McCain campaign.

"We can say what we want at press conferences or in slogans, but what we do on the floor screams far louder," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a McCain ally and an opponent of the farm bill.

At the same time, party moderates have been urging their colleagues to oppose Bush at every opportunity or face electoral disaster in November.

"If I was a farm-belt guy, I would be all over my district now, saying, 'I stood with you, not the party of the president,' " said Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), who wrote to GOP leaders last week, urging them to defy Bush or at least allow rank-and-file members to save themselves. "Anytime you can separate yourself from someone with a 28 percent favorability rating, that's a good thing."

The five-year measure continues and in some cases expands traditional farm subsidies, and it is stuffed with billions of dollars of new money for anti-hunger programs, conservation programs, fruit and vegetable growers, and the biofuels industry. Dairy farmers will get as much as $410 million more over 10 years to cover higher feed costs. House and Senate negotiators tucked in an annual authorization of $15 million to help "geographically disadvantaged farmers" in Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico.

The bill assures growers of basic crops such as wheat, cotton, corn and soybeans $5 billion a year in automatic payments, even if farm and food prices stay at record levels. And subsidies for the ethanol industry will decline only slightly, leaving largely intact support for the biofuel industry, which has been blamed for contributing to higher food prices.

An unusual coalition of urban liberals and Republican fiscal conservatives tried to sustain Bush's veto. "Merely because the president is not the most popular person in the country today doesn't mean he's always wrong," said Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.), who pushed for sweeping changes to the farm-support system.

But that coalition was overwhelmed by the larger bipartisan coalition committed to defending rural constituents, food stamp and school nutrition programs, and new benefits for African American farmers. Nutrition programs will consume about two-thirds of the spending.

"This is a bill about feeding the hungry," pleaded Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.). "This president is turning his back on the people of America."

Hundreds of grass-roots organizations, including food banks, supported the legislation. The National Farmers Union rallied more than 1,000 organizations in favor of the override.

"Although it's pork to most of the country, it's prime rib to the farm belt," Davis said.

Morgan is a contract writer for The Post and a fellow of the German Marshall Fund, a nonpartisan policy institute.

link

This is the change the dims want us to believe in.

[Justin5 20]

The question now is: what were the dims trying to hide by pushing this bill at this time?

It seems to be that the dims are saying that Congress can hide legislation from the President.

Do you think that is right for them to try that?

Wow, do a little research. This bill has been debated for months. If the Pres would have signed the bill that the House and Senate originally passed (very bipartisan vote) , this would have been done in January. The Legislature has been trying to compromise with the President, but he refused to = VETO OVERRIDE. Nothing is being hidden, the Administration has worked hand-and-hand with the Legislature crafting many parts of this bill.

According to House minority whip Roy Blunt, the Democrats made more than one mistake in failing to include a large section of the farm bill Congress sent to the White House. They argued that the omission did not make the bill invalid, and that Congress can choose to send only portions of bills for a presidential signature or veto.

Wouldn't you say this is a rather creative view of open government?

Democrats were at the least underhanded and worse, possibly and potentially unconstitutional with their maneuvering.

This error, while unbelievably bad timed, was made by the clerks office. Not the majority leader or any other majority parties office. They screwed up. To fix it, the override was passed to get many of the provisions started (due to them being extremely overdue), then yesterday the House re-passed the original bill to make sure nothing is missed (or unconstitutional as you noted).

Also, why you fail to mention that the White House COMPLETELY missed the missing section in my opinion is even more troubling. Do they not even bother to read bills anymore?!?

Pelosi told reporters she takes responsibility for the problem. But in a letter to House leaders, House Clerk Lorraine Miller said the problem stemmed from a process adopted 10 years ago, when Republicans were in charge. In order to save money, the official “parchment” copy was not proofread. Miller said that process is being changed.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/fiasco...2008-05-22.html

Keep on spinning. It will spin more of your party out of office come fall.

[Tigermike 3,055]

The question now is: what were the dims trying to hide by pushing this bill at this time?

It seems to be that the dims are saying that Congress can hide legislation from the President.

Do you think that is right for them to try that?

Wow, do a little research. This bill has been debated for months. If the Pres would have signed the bill that the House and Senate originally passed (very bipartisan vote) , this would have been done in January. The Legislature has been trying to compromise with the President, but he refused to = VETO OVERRIDE. Nothing is being hidden, the Administration has worked hand-and-hand with the Legislature crafting many parts of this bill.

According to House minority whip Roy Blunt, the Democrats made more than one mistake in failing to include a large section of the farm bill Congress sent to the White House. They argued that the omission did not make the bill invalid, and that Congress can choose to send only portions of bills for a presidential signature or veto.

Wouldn't you say this is a rather creative view of open government?

Democrats were at the least underhanded and worse, possibly and potentially unconstitutional with their maneuvering.

This error, while unbelievably bad timed, was made by the clerks office. Not the majority leader or any other majority parties office. They screwed up. To fix it, the override was passed to get many of the provisions started (due to them being extremely overdue), then yesterday the House re-passed the original bill to make sure nothing is missed (or unconstitutional as you noted).

Also, why you fail to mention that the White House COMPLETELY missed the missing section in my opinion is even more troubling. Do that not even bother to read bills anymore?!?

Pelosi told reporters she takes responsibility for the problem. But in a letter to House leaders, House Clerk Lorraine Miller said the problem stemmed from a process adopted 10 years ago, when Republicans were in charge. In order to save money, the official “parchment” copy was not proofread. Miller said that process is being changed.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/fiasco...2008-05-22.html

Keep on spinning. It will spin more of your party out of office come fall.

There is plenty of spin coming from the dims.

Who Pressured the Enrolling Clerk to Quickly Complete the Enrollment:

Ø In a memo prepared by the House Clerk on May 21, 2008, the Clerk asserts that part of the mistake was a result of a ten-year-old flawed enrolling process, yet she goes on to state that “During a review of this process, Enrolling Division staff expressed a concern in receiving direct calls from Leadership and the Committee to accelerate the enrolling process.” Who pressured the enrolling staff?

[Justin5 20]

I don't deny pressure from the committee (D's and R's), you do know Congress is now in Memorial Day recess, correct?

There was pressure. Someone screwed up. Everyone recognizes that.

Why you, and some on the right are trying to turn this into a conspiracy is beyond me, and a good portion of the Republicans.

[Tigermike 3,055]

I don't deny pressure from the committee (D's and R's), you do know Congress is now in Memorial Day recess, correct?

There was pressure. Someone screwed up. Everyone recognizes that.

Why you, and some on the right are trying to turn this into a conspiracy is beyond me, and a good portion of the Republicans.

Yeah all those honest dims would never do anything underhanded or dishonest would they?

What the hell does Memorial Day have to do about it? I didn't read about this little cover screw up till very late last night.

All the Memorial Day long weekend does is keep this on a very slow news cycle. That is if the MSM was interested at all.

[Justin5 20]

Ok, this is the last time I get into this as I am sick of educating you but, Memorial Day matters because Congress always goes into recess for the week. Always have, always will. The reason this is important is getting bills done before everyone leaves, and forces us to wait a couple of weeks.

You are as bad as the 9/11 conspiracy people if you think this was intentional.

"At thats just the way it is."

[Tigermike 3,055]

Ok, this is the last time I get into this as I am sick of educating you but, Memorial Day matters because Congress always goes into recess for the week. Always have, always will. The reason this is important is getting bills done before everyone leaves, and forces us to wait a couple of weeks.

You are as bad as the 9/11 conspiracy people if you think this was intentional.

"At thats just the way it is."

So when they go on vacation we should shut up and be quiet. Would this make you one of those elitist we hear about. So they screw up, hide things, go on vacation and we should be quiet.

Not going to happen.

[Justin5 20]

You can bitch all you want. I'm just saying there was a push to get it done before they all head home to do district work.

[Tigermike 3,055]

You can bitch all you want. I'm just saying there was a push to get it done before they all head home to do district work.

If they were in such a hurry to get out of town why push it through? And they just happened to leave part (a big part) out. How often does that happen?

[Tigermike 3,055]