Farm bill is bad news
A conference committee has agreed on a compromise to the pork-laden farm bill despite a veto threat from President Bush. Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss is showing his true colors by promising the White House on an attempt to override the veto.
Brian Riedl with the Heritage Foundation writes that there are a number of issues with the bill ranging from the fact that it raises subsidy payments and it continues corporate welfare to large businesses:
Record farm incomes provide a welcome opportunity to reform the antiquated, Depression-era system of expensive farm subsidies. Regrettably, the Senate farm bill (H.R. 2419) fails to modernize these programs. If the bill is enacted, Americans will continue paying $25 billion in taxes and another $12 billion in higher food prices annually for a program that distributes most of its benefits to millionaires. Additionally, these subsidies would continue to damage the environment (by promoting overproduction), undermine trade (thereby raising consumer prices and restricting U.S. exports), and promote poor diets (by subsidizing the sources of sugars and fats rather than healthier fruits and vegetables).Jacob Sullum from Reason pokes fun at Obama, who supports the bill:Organizations representing taxpayers, consumers, environmentalists, international trade, global antipoverty advocates, and even farmers agree that the current farm subsidy system is failing and in dire need of reform. Nonetheless, the current Senate bill retains this expensive and broken system. Lawmakers should scrap this bill and start over.
"We need to stand up to the special interests, bring Republicans and Democrats together, and pass the farm bill immediately," Barack Obama declared last November. It was a weird thing to say, since the farm bill, which subsidizes an arbitrarily chosen section of the economy at the expense of taxpayers and consumers in general, is special-interest legislation by definition.Call your Congressman and tell them to vote against the farm bill.The latest version, which President Bush has promised to veto, includes tax breaks for racehorse owners, "marketing aid" for fruit and vegetable growers, research funding for organic farmers, enhanced price supports for domestic sugar producers, increased subsidies for dairy farmers, a $170 million earmark for the salmon industry, and billions of dollars in automatic payments and "permanent disaster assistance" for corn, wheat, cotton, rice, and soybean growers. Take that, special interests!
Comments
Libertarian candidate for US Senate, Alan Buckley's position on the subject:
PRESS RELEASE
LIBERTARIAN U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE
BUCKLEY BLASTS FARM SUBSIDIES BILL
Atlanta, Georgia – May 8, 2008
Congress is now debating farm subsidies. Saxby Chambliss, a strong advocate of subsidies, is the ranking Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee.
In 2007, both The Heritage Foundation and Citizens Against Government Waste issued articles evidencing that the majority of subsidies, almost all of which relate to corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton and rice, are paid to corporations and large, very profitable farm operations. According to an April 3, 2007 article by John Freydenlund of Citizens Against Government Waste titled “Farm Subsidies: Myth and Reality”: “Large farm operations, with ten times the wealth of the average American family and annual incomes averaging more than $230,000-four times the income of the average American household-receive most of the subsidy payments.”
According to a June 19, 2007 article by Brian Reidl of The Heritage Foundation titled “How Farm Subsidies Harm Taxpayers, Consumers, and Farmers, Too,” Riceland Foods, Inc. received the most subsidies for the 1995-2005 time period¾$541,061,667. Subsidies cost the average household $216 in annual taxes and $104 in higher food prices.
Included in the group of beneficiaries of subsidies are the son and daughter of Saxby Chambliss, Joe and Terry Baker. According to the EWG Farm Subsidy Data base, they received over $160,000 of subsidies during the 2003-2005 period.
On December 13, 2007, Saxby Chambliss voted against an amendment to the farm bill to limit subsidies to persons making less than $750,000.
In the past, Saxby Chambliss has justified subsidies based on alleged need. However, according to the USDA, record farm profits were recorded for 2007, and 2008 is expected to be even better than 2007.
Since 1997, political campaigns of Saxby Chambliss have received more than $1,000,000 from agricultural and food PACs, farmers and farming organizations.
Allen Buckley said: “Taxes are a forced taking. They should be minimized. It’s one thing to charge people who drive and use the roads 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline, and quite another thing to force people to pay tax to make rich people richer. If Saxby Chambliss is a ‘conservative,’ then the definition needs to be changed.”
Mr. Buckley’s website is www.buckleyforsenate.com. He can be reached for comment at (404) 962-1042.
Posted by: Daniel N. Adams | May 14, 2008 08:39 AM
it raises subsidy payments and it continues corporate welfare to large businesses
Says it all. When I heard the news report that Bush wants to reduce the non-farm income level I was happier about it. Then I heard that Chambliss will cross the aisle to support the higher subsidies and income requirements, I was again let down by Georgia's Republican leadership.
Posted by: Larry Stanley | May 14, 2008 08:45 AM
Jason
I sincerely hope that the message you have posted here will somehow be disiminated to the general public as this is the main underlining problem in our system of government. Some call it bad policy some call it shortsightedness some call it bad judgment but few call it what it really is. It is nothing less than bribes and graft.
That Saxby Chambliss has immidate family that benefits from this is bad enough but that he wants to increase the level of money they get from me and you in my opinion borders on criminal.
Of course Georgia is known for producing the oxymorons that are so plentiful in government. I was once told that Sam Nunn was a conservative democrat and on the surface that would be believable but after checking the congressional record during his tenure in office his vote mirrored Ted Kennedy 97% of the time the voted on the same issues. That is not conservtative by any strech.
Chambliss speaks conservtative but his position on the farm subsidies bill is probably more to the left that Kennedy but then Mass doesn't have a lot of farm land. As stated you are a democrat or you are conservatative you can't by the law of nature be both...
I just believe that the incumbents need to be shipped out because they have shown they will not shape up.
I don't care who is on the ballot in November I am going to vote against all the incumbents and write in Larry Stanley name where an incumbent is running unopposed or no libertarian is on the ballot....lol
Don
Posted by: Don | May 14, 2008 09:42 AM