Bloated bill — 05/20/08

May 19, 2008 02:57 pm

— President Bush should do exactly what he has promised and veto the massive $290 billion farm bill Congress has just approved. That veto is almost certain to be overridden by Congress, but a veto is an opportunity for this lame-duck president to belatedly demonstrate a commitment to fiscally responsible government.
The veto is unlikely to be upheld because the bill enjoyed strong bipartisan support in Congress. Despite the opposition of President Bush, more than 100 Republicans in the House of Representatives joined the Democratic majority to approve the farm bill by a lopsided, veto-proof 318 to 106 vote. Thirty-five GOP members of the Senate joined Democrats in approving the bill 81-15.
There is plenty in this bloated bill for both conservatives and liberals to oppose. That’s why the liberal New York Times has joined many others in encouraging a veto of the bill.
Remember those tax breaks the Democrats have complained President Bush’s tax cuts have awarded disproportionately to the wealthy? Well, many of the rewards of the farm bureau will benefit wealthy farmers and agribusinesses that already are profiting from record farm prices. Members of Congress like to talk about helping “family farmers,” but the fact remains that corporate farms with profits exceeding $100,000 a year will receive subsidies through this bill.
And guess what? For the first time, the bill will subsidize race horses. Does anyone really believe the horse farms of Kentucky need hand outs from Uncle Sam? Sugar cane — already the recipient of government subsidies — would be further subsidized by turning the cane into ethanol.
A watchdog group now reports that buried in the massive farm bill is a provision to nullify a U.S. Court of Appeals decision ordering the U.S. Department of Agriculture to release to the public large quantities of data on how it administers billions of dollars in subsidies. We have two problems with that. One is that the provision further denies taxpayers the right to know how their taxes are being spent. Beyond that, many members of Congress who supported the bill said they did not know that provision was in it. What else is in there that they don’t know about?
To be sure, the farm bill is not just about subsidizing wealthy farmers. In fact, two-thirds of the bill’s cost goes to popular nutrition programs like food stamps, emergency food aid and fresh fruits and vegetables for school children. While it’s difficult to oppose feeding the hungry, there is much in this bill that is used for more wasteful purposes.
Of the three presidential candidates, John McCain has been unequivocal in his opposition to the farm bill. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama support it.
President Bush’s promised veto would be much stronger if he had not signed the equally bloated 2002 farm bill and presided over reckless spending for most of his 71/2 years in office. For his first six years in the White House, Bush never even vetoed a bill while Congress, then controlled by Republicans, ran up record deficits.
It’s a little late in the game for President Bush, who has always claimed to be a fiscal conservative, to criticize a bill for being bloated, wasteful and gimmick-ridden. Better late than never.