Indiana Delegation on the Farm Bill
I was proud of my President earlier in the week when he dug around and found his veto pen and rejected the $300 Billion Farm Bill. But apparently there is enough pork in this bill to make pretty much everyone happy–only $70 Billion actually has anything to do with Farms. The bill was brought up yesterday before the House to override President Bush’s veto. The measure passed 316 to 108 (25 more than needed).
With a number that high, many Republicans had to have joined in to override this vote. As it turns out 100 Republicans voted for this mess. So, who in the Indiana delegation voted against this thing. Here is the list:
Rep. Burton
Rep. Pence
Senator Lugar (WOW!)
That’s it. Souder and Buyer both voted for it. I know–they are in very rural areas–but we certainly should accept more from conservative Republicans. Lugar’s vote was on the original bill as the Senate has not voted yet to override the veto.
What a disgrace.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
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?
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
I found a picture with that exact thing Michael…..you want it I will send it to you!
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
That’s OK I think I have one already saved from Free Republic
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:08 pm
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.
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:17 pm
For those of us who don’t know(like me), what all was included in the farm bill?
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
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)?
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:02 pm
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 **
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:36 am
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
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:02 pm
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.