Redstate

By zroxx Posted in Archived — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The House voted on the Farm Bill yesterday, and passed it, 318-106. In a disappointing reminder of just how liberal House (R)'s have become, we see that a majority of them (100-91) actually voted in favor of the laundry list of special interest handouts and un-necessary welfare payments that make up the "Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act".

Among the "features" of this Farm Bill:

... 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. [cite]

and...

Dairy farmers will get as much as $410 million more over 10 years to cover higher feed costs, and negotiators tucked in an annual authorization of $15 million to help "geographically disadvantaged farmers" in Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa and Puerto Rico. [cite]

and...

... once again the big sugar plantation owners in Florida walk away with the sweetest deal: Big Sugar bagged an increase in price supports and a guarantee of 85% of the domestic sugar market at these guaranteed prices. So taxpayers are on the hook for buying surplus domestically produced sugar at 23 cents a pound and selling it for ethanol for closer to three cents a pound. [cite]

The Farm Bill is about as blatant of a give-away to the "wealthy" as one can imagine. That an adjustment downward from the $2.5MM/year income limit for receiving subsidies to $1.5MM/year (for couples, or $750K/year for individuals) is trumpeted as "reform" betrays the warped sense of necessity that pervades Congress. One wonders whether (D) voters will take note of this corporate give-away and call foul.

As far as (R)'s go, where is the consistent application of principles that drives actions? It isn't impressive when your fiscal discipline is dependent on whether you have something to gain politically. It only demonstrates that you have no principles and that if you were back in power you're just as likely to increase spending and throw taxpayer cash to your friends as the (D)'s:

When Bush first vetoed an attempt to expand SCHIP in October, he charged Congress with extending coverage to families with incomes as high as $83,000. ... But the president then proceeded to veto a second bill that set a general cap of 300 percent of poverty.

A 300 percent cap would translate into about $51,510 for a family of three — a single mother and two children, for example. In comparison, the $950,000 threshold lawmakers envision for the farm bill would be the equivalent of about 5,500 percent of poverty.

The irony weighs most heavily on Republicans who backed Bush on his vetoes but are now under pressure from commodity interests, especially in the South, to resist income caps on farmers.

In the Georgia Republican delegation, for example, Rep. Nathan Deal was one of those who pressed hardest for strict income caps on SCHIP; his colleague, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the ranking Republican among Senate farm bill negotiators, has only reluctantly agreed to the farm income caps proposed Wednesday. [cite]

Because, of course, we simply all must chip in to help struggling farmers trying to make ends meet at 4000-5000% above poverty.

All that aside, the stage is now set for an interesting indicator for the future of the (R) Congress. 43, fresh off his sudden revelation that years of complacency toward a spendthrift Congress might not be such a good idea (that revelation might also be called the 2006 elections), has threatened in no uncertain terms to veto the Farm Bill. Bravo for him! My assumption is he'll make good on the threat.

What then for (R) House members? Will they repay 43 after years of cooperation by overriding his veto? They seem poised to do so, and with the acquiescence of (R) leadership:

If House Republicans are unable to secure enough votes to sustain a veto, it would signify a remarkable failure of their leadership, especially of House Minority Leader John Boehner. Boehner has publically opposed the bill, but - along with House Minority Whip Roy Blunt - has refused to actively push his Republican colleagues to do the same. [cite]

So you have Boehner who voted against the bill but who wont fight for what he evidently believes, and Blunt who voted for the bill - which may indicate something about what he believes, regarding spending, limited government, and welfare.

We eagerly await the promised veto and the subsequent override vote. If a majority of Congressional (R)'s have decided to abandon the principles of limited government and the liberty of citizens to direct their funds as they see fit, in exchange for using ever-increasing amounts of taxpayer funds to pay for liberal/socialist welfare schemes that enrich special interests that by no stretch of the imagination require subsidies to prosper, it will be better to have their ilk on record now, well in advance of November, while there is still time to help them find new employment somewhere far away from appropriations committees.