As our government continues to use food as a weapon against its own citizens, the last place I would look for fuel to support my viewpoint would be a government agency.
USDA Press Release Number 0129.08 "WHAT THEY'RE SAYING: $300 BILLION GIVEAWAY, MASKED AS A FARM BILL'" ([link edited for length]), gives dozens of quotes from elected officials and major newspapers on this subject. I would have thought that the USDA would be pleased that they would get additional funding. Let me reprint a couple of them here.
The New York Times: "President Bush should keep his promise to veto it and demand better legislation." "[T]he 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. ... [E]ven 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." (Editorial, "A Disgraceful Farm Bill," The New York Times, 5/16/08)
The Washington Post: "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." "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. These members of the less-representative body leveraged their right to filibuster into billions of dollars for people who are better off than the average taxpayer." (Editorial, "Farm Bill Chestnuts," The Washington Post, 5/16/08)
The Indy [IN] Star: "[T]he president should kick this mess back to Capitol Hill with the message that taxpayers are fed up with wasteful spending." "The Bush administration wanted to be able to use foreign aid money to buy food at locations near where it's needed by starving people. That move would reduce transportation costs and allow foreign aid dollars to be stretched further. The bill instead continues a requirement that all food aid must be purchased from U.S. farms." (Editorial, "Goodies For Farmers, Bad News For Taxpayers," The Indy [IN] Star, 5/16/08)
Sugar Policy Alliance: "H.R. 2419 will make a bad sugar program even worse, jeopardizing American industries, workers and consumers." "The sugar program has always been touted as 'no net cost' to taxpayers, yet this costly new measure requires the government to give away taxpayer dollars." (Sugar Policy Alliance, "Farm Bill Jeopardizes American Industries, Workers And Consumers, U.S. Sugar Policy Falls Short," Press Release, 5/15/08)
What I like best are the quotes of elected officials. There are quotes from both sides of the aisle.
Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) "This bill was well designed to avoid every opportunity for serious reform of wasteful, outdated subsidy programs while actually piling on additional layers of unnecessary spending." "My colleagues and the President should reject these sham reforms, and demand a farm bill that helps only the family farmers who need it, and is worth the confidence of the American taxpayer." (Rep. Ron Kind, "Farm Bill Reform Leaders Criticize Conference Report As Absent Meaningful Reform, Urge Rejection Of The Bill," Press Release, 5/14/08)
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR): "At a time when Americans are struggling to pay their mortgage, food and energy bills, we should help people who need it and not lavish resources on people who don't." "With record high farm prices, we should not give money to couples earning up to $1.5 million in farm income and $1 million in non-farm income when most farmers still get little or no help." (Rep. Earl Blumenauer, "Farm Bill Reform Leaders Criticize Conference Report As Absent Meaningful Reform, Urge Rejection Of The Bill," Press Release, 5/14/08)
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI): "The conferees have squandered yet another opportunity for meaningful reform." "The farm bill should be focused on providing a safety net for family farmers in times of need, yet Congress has instead opted to subsidize the wealthy at a time when food prices are surging. Our agricultural policies are in desperate need of commonsense reform and this bill fails to deliver." (Rep. Paul Ryan, "Farm Bill Reform Leaders Criticize Conference Report As Absent Meaningful Reform, Urge Rejection Of The Bill," Press Release, 5/14/08)
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN): "Trade distortion is yet another major problem with the bill." "Surprisingly, instead of fixing the programs to shield U.S. farmers from these challenges, this Farm Bill continues these programs and provocatively increases the subsidy rates. ... Failure to move toward compliance will invite retaliatory tariffs that legally can be directed at any U.S. industry." (Sen. Richard Lugar, "Lugar Says The Fiscal, Food And Trade Policy Costs Of The Farm Bill 'Too Great And Too Damaging," Press Release, 5/14/08)
Unfortunately the Senate passed the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 anyway by 85-15, as did the House 318-106. It looks like it will survive a veto and become law for the next five years.
©2008 Bob Nightingale, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, May 20, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Bob Nightingale only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Bob Nightingale is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Bob Nightingale of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Bob Nightingale |
Reader Comments: