http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080516/OPINION08/805160390/1291/OPINION08
Goodies for farmers, bad news for taxpayers
Our position: Farm bill is Grade A example of wasteful spending.
Richard Lugar said the legislation defies common sense. Mike Pence called it fiscally irresponsible. President Bush promises to veto the measure.
Yet, both the U.S. House and Senate this week passed a $300 billion farm bill that will shower even more taxpayer subsidies on corporations and some of the nation's wealthiest farmers.
How bad is this bill? It will ladle out $25 billion a year in subsidies and $5 billion in direct payments at a time when farm income and food prices are surging. Net farm income is currently about 50 percent above the decade-long average. The typical farm family now makes about $90,000 a year. Food prices last month, according to the federal government, were up more than 5 percent from a year earlier.
The bill even managed to bestow more largess on the highly subsidized and highly protected U.S. sugar industry. Under the legislation, the government promises to purchase excess sugar from producers at 23 cents a pound. The sugar then will be resold to ethanol producers at 2 cents a pound. Who makes up the difference? You, dear taxpayer.
The administration wanted to cut off payments for farmers with adjusted gross incomes of more than $200,000 a year. The bill instead begins to cap subsidies for those earning more than $750,000 a year in farm income or more than $500,000 in non-farm income.
In addition to the sugar subsidy, the bill contains another protectionist element, one that hurts hungry people around the world. The Bush administration wanted to be able to use foreign aid money to buy food at locations near where it's needed by starving people. That move would reduce transportation costs and allow foreign aid dollars to be stretched further. The bill instead continues a requirement that all food aid must be purchased from U.S. farms.
All of which makes the Democratic leadership's claims that the bill represents significant reform utterly fanciful. Not that Republicans can claim much fiscal responsibility. Enough House and Senate Republicans sided with Democrats on the measure to make Bush's likely veto an act of futility.
Still, the president should kick this mess back to Capitol Hill with the message that taxpayers are fed up with wasteful spending.
Lugar, Pence and Rep. Dan Burton deserve credit for having the good sense to vote against the bill. Unfortunately, the other members of Indiana's congressional delegation went along with the nonsense. In doing so, Evan Bayh, Steve Buyer, Andre Carson, Joe Donnelly, Brad Ellsworth, Baron Hill, Mark Souder and Peter Visclosky abandoned any claims that they are standing up for fiscal discipline in Washington.
Seven of those lawmakers (Bayh is the exception) are running for re-election this fall. Voters should take note.
Goodies for farmers, bad news for taxpayers
Our position: Farm bill is Grade A example of wasteful spending.
Richard Lugar said the legislation defies common sense. Mike Pence called it fiscally irresponsible. President Bush promises to veto the measure.
Yet, both the U.S. House and Senate this week passed a $300 billion farm bill that will shower even more taxpayer subsidies on corporations and some of the nation's wealthiest farmers.
How bad is this bill? It will ladle out $25 billion a year in subsidies and $5 billion in direct payments at a time when farm income and food prices are surging. Net farm income is currently about 50 percent above the decade-long average. The typical farm family now makes about $90,000 a year. Food prices last month, according to the federal government, were up more than 5 percent from a year earlier.
The bill even managed to bestow more largess on the highly subsidized and highly protected U.S. sugar industry. Under the legislation, the government promises to purchase excess sugar from producers at 23 cents a pound. The sugar then will be resold to ethanol producers at 2 cents a pound. Who makes up the difference? You, dear taxpayer.
The administration wanted to cut off payments for farmers with adjusted gross incomes of more than $200,000 a year. The bill instead begins to cap subsidies for those earning more than $750,000 a year in farm income or more than $500,000 in non-farm income.
In addition to the sugar subsidy, the bill contains another protectionist element, one that hurts hungry people around the world. The Bush administration wanted to be able to use foreign aid money to buy food at locations near where it's needed by starving people. That move would reduce transportation costs and allow foreign aid dollars to be stretched further. The bill instead continues a requirement that all food aid must be purchased from U.S. farms.
All of which makes the Democratic leadership's claims that the bill represents significant reform utterly fanciful. Not that Republicans can claim much fiscal responsibility. Enough House and Senate Republicans sided with Democrats on the measure to make Bush's likely veto an act of futility.
Still, the president should kick this mess back to Capitol Hill with the message that taxpayers are fed up with wasteful spending.
Lugar, Pence and Rep. Dan Burton deserve credit for having the good sense to vote against the bill. Unfortunately, the other members of Indiana's congressional delegation went along with the nonsense. In doing so, Evan Bayh, Steve Buyer, Andre Carson, Joe Donnelly, Brad Ellsworth, Baron Hill, Mark Souder and Peter Visclosky abandoned any claims that they are standing up for fiscal discipline in Washington.
Seven of those lawmakers (Bayh is the exception) are running for re-election this fall. Voters should take note.
