May 22
Bush’s farm bill veto message
Or, as Cartman would say, ‘Screw you guys!’
From my e-mail box:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release May 21, 2008
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 2419, the “Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.”
For a year and a half, I have consistently asked that the Congress pass a good farm bill that I can sign. Regrettably, the Congress has failed to do so. At a time of high food prices and record farm income, this bill lacks program reform and fiscal discipline. It continues subsidies for the wealthy and increases farm bill spending by more than $20 billion, while using budget gimmicks to hide much of the increase. It is inconsistent with our objectives in international trade negotiations, which include securing greater market access for American farmers and ranchers. It would needlessly expand the size and scope of government. Americans sent us to
In January 2007, my Administration put forward a fiscally responsible farm bill proposal that would improve the safety net for farmers and move current programs toward more market-oriented policies. The bill before me today fails to achieve these important goals.
At a time when net farm income is projected to increase by more than $28 billion in 1 year, the American taxpayer should not be forced to subsidize that group of farmers who have adjusted gross incomes of up to $1.5 million. When commodity prices are at record highs, it is irresponsible to increase government subsidy rates for 15 crops, subsidize additional crops, and provide payments that further distort markets. Instead of better targeting farm programs, this bill eliminates the existing payment limit on marketing loan subsidies.
Now is also not the time to create a new uncapped revenue guarantee that could cost billions of dollars more than
advertised. This is on top of a farm bill that is anticipated to cost more than $600 billion over 10 years. In addition, this bill would force many businesses to prepay their taxes in order to finance the additional spending.
This legislation is also filled with earmarks and other ill‑considered provisions. Most notably, H.R. 2419 provides: $175 million to address water issues for desert lakes; $250 million for a 400,000-acre land purchase from a private owner; funding and authority for the noncompetitive sale of National Forest land to a ski resort; and $382 million earmarked for a specific watershed. These earmarks, and the expansion of Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements, have no place in the farm bill. Rural and urban Americans alike are frustrated with excessive government spending and the funneling of taxpayer funds for pet projects. This bill will only add to that frustration.
The bill also contains a wide range of other objectionable provisions, including one that restricts our ability to redirect food aid dollars for emergency use at a time of great need globally. The bill does not include the requested authority to buy food in the developing world to save lives. Additionally, provisions in the bill raise serious constitutional concerns. For all the reasons outlined above, I must veto H.R. 2419, and I urge the Congress to extend current law for a year or more.
I veto this bill fully aware that it is rare for a stand-alone farm bill not to receive the President’s signature, but my action today is not without precedent. In 1956, President Eisenhower stood firmly on principle, citing high crop subsidies and too much government control of farm programs among the reasons for his veto. President Eisenhower wrote in his veto message, “Bad as some provisions of this bill are, I would have signed it if in total it could be interpreted as sound and good for farmers and the nation.” For similar reasons, I am vetoing the bill before me today.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 21, 2008.
# # #
7 Comments so far
Leave a Reply
Congress to taxpayer: “Screw you guys!”
Bush to South Dakota: “I don’t care about you.”
For once something I can agree with Bush on. Why would congress think that the answer to high food prices and record farm income is to throw more subsidies at farmers. And the sweetheart earmarks are shameful.
Message to farmers: You are business people. The era of the government giving handouts when they are not needed is over. You better find a way to make your business stand on its own two feet like every other small business. If you want government subsidies - you better become a large oil company or a foreign oil-producing nation.
Interesting that Bush doesn’t like judges legislating, but wants to be legislator in chief himself.
If he can’t convince his Republicans in Congress to oppose subsidies for the very rich, then the problem is his.
Ag subsidies should be limited to no more that the equivalent of two annual miniumum wage jobs. There are ways to control overproduction and keep ag prices high enough that no subsidies are required, but that would actually “solve” the problem and then how would congressmen and senators milk the issue every few years if the expensive problem no longer existed.
Obama is right in one regard. Our politicians love to present plans as solutions to problems when they know very well they are only supporting the appearance of a solution.
Input costs are through the roof. $1400 anhydrous, $4+ diesel fuel, etc. makes farming a dangerous profession.
You naysayers want to start importing your food like we do our oil —– keep up your line of BS. We farmers would prefer NOT to rely on farm programs but as long as our country is paying for $135 oil….we simply need the floor.
I don’t understand Farm Kid. Why would we have to import food if we stop giving the big handouts to farmers? Would everyone quit producing food because it’s more cost effective to import food from Europe where fuel is $9/gallon and pay shipping from there? Would it be more cost effective to ship food from Canada where fuel is yet more expensive than here? Why are the laws of supply and demand not adequate?
Why must wealthy farmers receive price supports? I know of at least one gigantic farming operation in SD set up as numerous limited liability partnerships for the purpose of each separate entity collecting government checks. But really it’s one man running the whole show and raking in the dough, but having partners on paper only.
So the government should bail out farmers if its dry, if its wet, if prices are low, if prices are high but expenses are high. Under what circumstances would the government NOT have to send checks to farmers?
grow hemp and raise buffalo