Comments on: Indiana Delegation on the Farm Bill

By: Joel Harris

Joel Harris — Fri, 23 May 2008 17:02:27 +0000

There are many problems: 1. The bill is being pushed as a “Farm Bill” which is being used to hide the real subject matter of the bill–pork and entitlement spending. It also makes it more difficult for rural Representatives to vote against this stuff as the various report cards will say that they voted against their constituents. 2. While these programs (e.g. Food Stamps) need legislation addressing them, what is being done here is massive expansion of already bloated government programs. 3. There is massive meddling in free markets with this bill–things like the above mentioned sugar subsidies, etc. 4. Even the farm part is silly–it ties price targets to the 2007 commodity prices, which were at record highs. In other words, we will be paying subsidies even when the actual prices for the commodities are at profitable levels. 5. PORK PORK PORK. Needless and excessive spending.

By: mikeyc252

mikeyc252 — Fri, 23 May 2008 14:36:37 +0000

2/3 of the bill goes to food stamps and conservation programs. I really don’t see the problem with that.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/19189349.html
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i440tH3TeSZXsKhDYs-GYMqnLhXAD90QM2100

By: Joel Harris

Joel Harris — Fri, 23 May 2008 01:02:35 +0000

Eric, I assume the Mike you are referring to is Sodrel. Can’t say. He would certainly have been in a similar situation as Sauder and Buyer (close elections in a largely farm/rural district).

Scratch, among other things there is a $10 Billion expansion of Food Stamps; $170 Million for salmon fisheries in California; $348 Million subsidy for “cellulosic” ethanol. It buys “excess” sugar from US producers for 23 cents per pound and then sells it to ethanol producers for 2 cents per pound. It requires all food aid that we send to other countries to be purchased from US farmers. This means that we must purchase and then transport food to Africa, say, rather than use local sources. (Bush was asking for allowing 25% from local sources).

** Sigh **

By: ericschansberg

ericschansberg — Thu, 22 May 2008 20:45:03 +0000

Joel, I understand your generalization with respect to Lugar, but he is *quite* solid on farm legislation– one of the (quixotic) leaders, in fact (from a fiscally conservative standpoint).

From my perspective, this begs the question: WWMD? What would Mike do? He typically voted with Sauder and Buyer, so I’d guess this is one more time he would have been disappointing to fiscal conservatives.

Overall, this is one more brutal example of the extent to which the GOP has strayed from various “conservative” principles. What will cause them to change (if anything)?

By: scratchman

scratchman — Thu, 22 May 2008 20:17:53 +0000

For those of us who don’t know(like me), what all was included in the farm bill?

By: Joel Harris

Joel Harris — Thu, 22 May 2008 20:08:01 +0000

I think I know it is a bad bill when Lugar votes against it. He is usually in the thick of these bills (it is one of my knocks on him). If it didn’t pass his muster, it must be bad.

Michael, you are right. And I am sure that this is coming up now because it is close to election season. But at some point if you are, or claim to be a conservative, you are going to have to step up to the plate and vote the way you know is right.

By: Michael Jezierski

Michael Jezierski — Thu, 22 May 2008 19:44:15 +0000

That’s OK I think I have one already saved from Free Republic

By: mark95

mark95 — Thu, 22 May 2008 19:38:50 +0000

I found a picture with that exact thing Michael…..you want it I will send it to you!

By: Michael Jezierski

Michael Jezierski — Thu, 22 May 2008 18:35:24 +0000

Farm Bills are ALWAYS “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” types of legislation. You’re excoriated as “anti-agriculture” if you vote against it and Big City Dems know this and load them up with pork.

Where’s a pig with lipstick graphic when you need it?