Now
Mostly Cloudy
83°
High
82°
Low
63°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Bush vetoes farm bill

Comments 13 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY DEB RIECHMANN / The Associated Press

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 12:45:44 pm CDT

WASHINGTON — President Bush vetoed the $300 billion farm bill on Wednesday, calling it a tax increase on regular Americans at a time of high food prices in the face of a near-certain override by Congress.

It was the 10th veto of Bush’s presidency. But since it passed both houses of Congress with veto-proof majorities, his action will likely be overridden.

The president believes the legislation is fiscally irresponsible and gives away too much money to wealthy farmers, yet his criticism rang hollow with lawmakers from both parties who voted for increased crop subsidies, food stamps for the poor and other goodies to help their districts in an election year.

Story Photo
President Bush

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said lawmakers should think twice before they override Bush’s veto.

“Members are going to have to think about how they will explain these votes back in their districts at a time when prices are on the rise,” she said. “People are not going to want to see their taxes increase.”

Perino said the bill is $20 billion over the current baseline — “way too much to ask taxpayers right now.”

“This bill is bloated,” she said. “When grocery bills are on the rise, Congress is asking families to pay more in subsidies to wealthy farmers at a time of record farm profits.”

In announcing Bush’s veto, White House budget director Jim Nussle said Bush rejected it because it increases federal spending. He said Americans are frustrated with wasteful government spending and the funneling of taxpayer funds to pet projects. “This only worsens the frustration that they will feel,” Nussle said, adding that Congress should extend the current farm bill.

About two-thirds of the bill would pay for nutrition programs such as food stamps and emergency food aid for the needy. An additional $40 billion is for farm subsidies while almost $30 billion would go to farmers to idle their land and to other environmental programs.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said that the measure will drastically increase nutrition initiatives that will help 38 million U.S. families put food on their tables. She made it clear she would have preferred smaller farm subsidies, but deferred to some Democratic colleagues looking ahead to the fall campaign.

Some Republicans criticized the mostly bipartisan and popular bill because a few home-state pet causes, including tax breaks for Kentucky racehorse owners and additional aid for salmon fishermen in the Pacific Northwest.

The bill also would:

—Boost nutrition programs, including food stamps and emergency domestic food aid, by more than $10 billion over 10 years. It would expand a program to provide fresh fruits and vegetables to schoolchildren.

—Increase subsidies for certain crops, including fruits and vegetables excluded from previous farm bills.

—Extend dairy programs.

—Increase loan rates for sugar producers.

—Urge the government to buy surplus sugar and sell it to ethanol producers for use in a mixture with corn.

—Cut a per-gallon ethanol tax credit for refiners from 51 cents to 45 cents. The credit supports the blending of fuel with the corn-based additive. More money would go to cellulosic ethanol, made from plant matter.

—Require that meats and other fresh foods carry labels with their country of origin.

—Stop allowing farmers to collect subsidies for multiple farm businesses.

—Reopen a major discrimination case against the Agriculture Department. Thousands of black farmers who missed a deadline would get a chance to file claims alleging they were denied loans or other subsidies.

—Pay farmers for weather-related farm losses from a new $3.8 billion disaster relief fund.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
News > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Matt wrote on May 21, 2008 1:05 pm:
" At first I agreed with Bush here.

However, when I read the bullet points at the end of this article, I have to say there isn't one thing here that I don't agree with. Good job legislature. "

 Disappointed American Rancher wrote on May 21, 2008 1:39 pm:
" I'm surely disappointed that I don't matter to George W. In 2002, he told drought stricken ranchers that we'd just "have to tighten your belts", rather than providing a degree of relief commensurate with the scale of the drought disaster. Then look at the failed responce to the Katrina disaster.

If the farm bill is $20 billion too high for him and it's a 5 year bill, that's $4 billion a year too much, according to him. To put this in perspective, that amount would last his Iraq and Afganistan wars only about a week and a half, but could protect American agriculture and low income Americans for several years. It's surely disappointing that he's willing to go picking fights with the wrong countries, but then refuses to protect good, honest, hard working Americans here at home.

His failed energy policies have increased my cost of production by $150 per cow this year, due to the increase in the price of corn and diesel fuel. That is more than I made last year for my personal living expenses. That means that this year, I am guaranteed to loose money, thanks to George W. "

 Farm Bill for the Farmers wrote on May 21, 2008 2:24 pm:
" 300 Billion dollars and less than 1/4 would end up in the hands of farmers, most of whom are the wealthiest farmers. Most would be doled out to welfare or environmental groups; they are worthy causes, but do not belong on the Farm Bill. Let's cut the pork out and pass a bill that helps small farmers who really need it. "

 JT wrote on May 21, 2008 2:27 pm:
" Yep, way to go Congress. If Bush was really interested in helping taxpayers he wouldn't be running up a record debt with a waste of a war and mega-tax breaks for oil companies. What does Johanns think about his buddy's veto? "

 You want to talk about wasteful spending wrote on May 21, 2008 2:34 pm:
" Look at the Iraq war! "

 Nina wrote on May 21, 2008 2:36 pm:
" How convenient - even though he knew his veto would make no difference, he used it as an occasion to say he tried to keep costs down...the stage was set for his posturing. Now the Bush is on his way out and the legislators don't have to worry about appeasing him, they finally did the right thing by the farm bill. "

 Des wrote on May 21, 2008 3:37 pm:
" Some things not included in the Journal Star bullet points but which can be found from the Heritage Foundation:
The farm bill continues to subsidize millionaires and only a limited number of crops.
Estimates key payment limits and fails to close loopholes that allow for exploitation of the farm bill subsidy payments.
Increasing spending even as farming revenue is climbing.
Increases subsidy rates and the number of items subsidized.
Continues the direct payments regardless of how high crop prices go.
Creates a new disaster aid program on top of the ones already in place and which are being funded.
THe majority of the farm bill subsidies (90%) go to wheat, cotton, corn, soybeans, and rice. Things such as vegetables, fruit, beef, and poultry get almost nothing from the farm bills.

Overall, the whole thing, in my humble opinion, has degenerated into a spending bonanza and a mess. I certainly hope that those in Congress get a clue and decide to be a little more responsible instead of just overturning the veto. "

 Kevin wrote on May 21, 2008 3:55 pm:
" What about the inclusion of racehorse owners under a farm bill?

Whatever the President's motives, this bill is full or pork and needs to be cut down. "

 My idea-- wrote on May 21, 2008 4:43 pm:
" Cut subsidies to ALL farmers. Hey, I'm a working man too, and I don't rely on the government to give me money. If you need money that bad, go down and apply at the welfare office. My point being that farmers aren't that poor and that subsidies are merely a bonus handout. People will ask where the food will come from and that is a childish argument. Free economies will provide the lowest prices possible for every single item you buy including food. Corporations would handle farming and your grocery bill would probably be 50% less and your taxes would go down. Don't believe me? Check out www.ewg.org and it will show you EXACTLY how much your local farmers are receiving. It is ridiculous. "

 although wrote on May 21, 2008 4:52 pm:
" i'm not a farm bill advocate, I question this man who has spent trillions on iraq war and billions on rebuilding the iraqi country for not passing a bill that would cost a few billion. Again, I think if the red state remains a red state and votes republican you are asking for more of the same. whoever voted for this guy and his buddies the second term should be proud of yourselves. A clown in a dress suit. "

 Worthless veto wrote on May 21, 2008 4:59 pm:
" This veto is like bringing a spoon to a gun fight. Congress already has enough votes to override the veto in both houses by a large margin. This is where politics is rediculous and Bush should have just accepted the farm bill even if he wasn't for it so congress can move on to the next bill. "

 DJ wrote on May 22, 2008 6:03 am:
" This Congress is such a joke: From the Washington Times
"A clerical error meant the version of the bill that Mr. Bush vetoed yesterday differed from the version passed last week by Congress, and House Democrats said they will have to go through the whole vote process again." "

 charles finley wrote on May 22, 2008 6:44 am:
" I would urge Congress to not override the new farm bill for all the reasons that President Bush has laid out. Since living in a farming community, I can see the results of the farm subsidies. Who has all the new equipment every year or so and it might be surprising to follow up on the people that apply for aid in some form. They might not be as bad off as they indicate. And worst of all, many congress people are voting for it so to insure their re-election. "

Ads by Yahoo!

More Stories In News