Political Insider

By GeorgiaValues

May 21, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this

Saxby is right on target with this issue. I applaud his efforts, not only to push this bill which is so critical to Georgia, but also for working to make this the most conservative Farm Bill ever passed.

Saxby gets things done for Agriculture, for Georgia, and for this Nation!

By bill4truth

May 21, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

With the amount of people in Georgia whose jobs are dependent on agriculture it is a relief to have a U.S. Senator who understands the needs of the citizens of the state.

Keep on Working Saxby!

By MT

May 21, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this

Georgians are well served by Chambliss. Agriculture is so often ignored, yet it is critical to this state’s economy and to our food security.

I for one do not want to be dependant upon foreign countries for my food.

Keep up the good work Saxby.

By SandyLu

May 21, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this

This is much better than previous farm bills, and will be extremely beneficial to not only GA, but to the rest of the country.

By cunninghamk

May 21, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this

We are already relying on foreign oil, I cannot imagine being totally reliant on foreign agriculture…

Saxby ‘08

By GT College Republican

May 21, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this

I really like that Chambliss pushed to get the direct payments and income limits capped. He also pushed to make sure that those folks who farm on the side, while earning significant non-farm income cannot benefit from Federal assistance.

This is the kind of common sense conservative leadership Republicans are known for.

By taxpayer

May 21, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this

As a taxpayer I applaud the President for his VETO of the for this hugh spending bill called the Farm Bill. He has help Georgia two senator ans Congressman Gingery to save face with the taxpayers of Georgia. By making rich famers richer and the taxpayers expense.

By taxpayer

May 21, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this

As a taxpayer I applaud the President for his VETO of this hugh spending bill called the Farm Bill. He has help Georgia two senator ans Congressman Gingery to save face with the taxpayers of Georgia. By making rich famers richer and the taxpayers expense.

By James

May 21, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this

Taxpayers who oppose this farm bill must realize that the only profit farmers see is from federal subsidies. We essentially raise raw commodities at cost of production to keep the cost of food in line for American consumers. If the American consumer is willing to pay the true market value for food, which would be two to three times higher than current value, then this farmer would be content to farm without federal subsidy. It never ceases to amaze me how far the average consumer is in understanding the economics and politics of food.

By Rob

May 21, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this

There are many good things in this bill. It is unfortunate it comes at the “pork” price of some of the bad. One of the pluses in this bill is a more fair tax structure for forest product companies working on non-food based biofuel alternatives, such as Weyerhaeuser.

By Sensible Atlantan

May 21, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this

A bill that increase farm spending by almost $20 billion over the next 10 years is conservative? What happened to small-government conservatism!??

There is absolutely no reason to subsidize farming when farm profits are at record highs. This is blatant robbery of taxpayers in the service of special interests.

The US Congress should be ashamed of themselves.

By Fiscally Speaking

May 21, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this

Clearly those first few posts were written by Saxby’s campaign! The language is right out of the PR 101 text books. Saxby is not conservative, nor is he fiscally responsible with this bill. Yes we should support Ag but this bill is welfare for the wealthy, period.

By flip wilson

May 21, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this

Ga Values, you must work for his lobbbyist son. Here is what John McCain said about this bill this week: “It would be hard to find any single bill that better sums up why so many Americans in both parties are so disappointed in the conduct of their government, and at times so disgusted by it.”

By Freeranger

May 21, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

The farm bill represents all that is wrong with our politics. Welfare for the wealthy and subsidized food burning (biofuel subsisdies)are wrong on many levels. I don’t understand how any conservative can support this bill and liberals who support more nutrition programs for the poor have sold out.

By Stan

May 21, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this

LOL at Chambliss’ staffers trying to tell me what I should think about the President vetoing this monstrosity.

lol

By Jimmy T.

May 21, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this

Yes we farmers are so rich that of the 38 years of farming I’ve never had a year i didn’t live on borrowed money. I just had to sell the farm so I might keep my house. Take the subsidies away and there will be many more like me. If I was in the oil business like bush i would be grinning like him.

By jsens

May 21, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this

Nothing new here. Farmers have been farming the government for as long as I’ve be around. I’m sure they want to keep doing so.

By JohnJ

May 21, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

I don’t care for farm bills and don’t support them, but the president is wrong again (as usual). Increased food prices are, in large part, a result increased fuel prices. Increased fuel prices are the result of no substantial energy policy. Ethanol is not an answer to the problem, it is just pushing fuel and food prices higher, while contributing to hunger in poorer countries.

By tom ga hunter

May 21, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this

I guess Saxby got tired of the tyuth here & has most of his staff writting how great he is.. The facts, Sugar industry $3,300,000,000 Bail out of Dakota Land speculators $1,000,000,000, Race horses $473,000,000, Ark timber industry 482,000,000, Georgia small farmers $0…I am voting for McCain & against Saxby Big spending LIBERAL Chambliss.

By Larry

May 21, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this

For once President Bush acted as a conservative and did the right thing.

James, we (as tax payers) will be happy to quit subsidizing farmers and pay market value. You, on the other hand, must realize that the best “market value” might not come from American farmers. Greed has all but eliminated American fish on our tables and it can do the same for our bread.

By Doug Craig

May 21, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this

Big government versus bigger government You would think I am talking about the GOP versus the demoncrats. No I am talking about the GOP versus the GOP. If you like big government you will love Saxby. If you want small government than vote Libertarian

By YRLeader

May 21, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this

I applaud Bush for his VETO. This bill is a joke! Have you heard of being fiscally conservative? Most of our Republican Congessman from GA had the intelligence to see what this bill is about - more spending - and they voted AGAINST it! Thank you GA Republican Congressmen!

By tom ga hunter

May 21, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this

By Jim Wooten | Tuesday, May 13, 2008, 07:24 AM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Everything most Americans —- and all fiscal conservatives —- hate about Congress is contained in a five-year, $300 billion farm bill headed to a certain presidential veto.

It’s dishonest. Congress claims that it’s only $10 billion more than the administration wants. In reality, though, said Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Chuck Conner in a conversation Monday, it’s about twice that.

“It’s about $20 billion over budget because they have managed to hide the true cost of the bill quite a bit.” They are doing it, he explained, by moving payouts beyond the time frame used to calculate costs while moving up revenues from things like crop insurance.

Congress did the same thing last year in projecting the cost for the State Children’s Health Insurance program. Spending on that bill, which the president vetoed, was projected to go from $5.6 billion per year to $13.9 billion in 2012, and then —- as Congress employed the game it now plays on the farm bill —- would “drop” 69 percent in 2013 to $7.8 billion and further to $4.8 billion in 2014. Dishonest.

To hide the true cost of the farm bill, “they take a program that they know has to be funded, like disaster money and a couple of others that they know they will have to come back to extend,” said Conner.

In addition to dishonesties, it contains outrages, one after another. An example is the sugar program, which costs taxpayers in excess of $2 billion annually. “The sugar program is essentially a producer cartel run out of Washington,” said Chris Edwards, director of tax policy at the Cato Institute.

“Many people thought you could not get more heavily involved than the government already is under the current program,” said Conner. That program exists solely to benefit sugar beet producers, mostly in Minnesota, Michigan, California, Idaho and North Dakota, and sugar cane producers, mostly in Florida and Louisiana.

It’s designed to keep sugar prices high by requiring that 85 percent of the sugar sold in America be produced here. Taxpayers buy sugar at roughly twice the world price and, heretofore, stored it for sale back when supplies were tight. “This bill says, ‘no, you can’t store sugar, you have to sell it immediately for ethanol,’ ” said Conner.

The value of sugar for ethanol production is about 2 cents per pound. The world price of sugar is about 12.5 cents per pound. “We are buying it at 23 cents a pound and are required to sell it for 2 cents a pound,” explained Conner. “What kind of deal is that for U.S. taxpayers?”

Lousy, of course. Outrageous, certainly. Insane public policy. “I am not talking about a few million bucks here,” said Conner. “This is hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Outrages are evident, too, in a much-publicized provision that would give the owners of thoroughbred racehorses a $93 million depreciation write-off. It is a first, said Conner, the first time that a farm bill has been used to write a tax bill. “These are provisions that would never have passed on their own.”

Outrageous, too, is the provision that suddenly appeared requiring taxpayers to spend $200 million to buy land in Montana that has no farm-related value.

Most outrageous of all is the refusal of a Congress that denied $600 stimulus checks to some in the middle class but now refuses to expunge even the wealthiest of farmers from the dole. The administration proposed to start weaning farmers whose nonfarm income exceeded $200,000. Congress raised that to $500,000 or $1 million for married couples. For those whose income is solely from farming, it’s $750,000 and $1.5 million. “We only targeted the top 2 percent” of farmers, said Conner. As rewritten, “this is going to deny benefits to virtually no one in America,” he said.

“Scarce tax dollars are hard to come by. The notion that people whose annual income is in the million-dollar range, the idea that we have got to use tax dollars to help them, is beyond explanation. We should say to them that ‘there is an American Dream out there and you are living it, but don’t expect any more tax dollars from people who are struggling to find dollars to put gas in the tank.’ “

Within days, Congress will pass this bill. It’s atrocious legislation deserving of the quick veto it’s certain to get.

I can’t put it any better than this..

By This is not about Farmers

May 21, 2008 5:26 PM | Link to this

74% of the Farm Bill has nothing to do with farms. Saxby and his bill are nothing but lard. I support farming and want a good, fiscally responsible farm bill. Therefore, I will support a new Senator.

By Mableton Mom

May 21, 2008 5:35 PM | Link to this

Georgia farmers and our children’s health…pretty important issues if you ask me. I support the override.

By gafarmer

May 21, 2008 5:49 PM | Link to this

To all the naysayers, if this farm bill and the ones before it are so lucrative why do we have fewer commercial family farms each year?

The answer is not corporate farms taking over family farms.

By tom ga hunter

May 21, 2008 6:21 PM | Link to this

gafarmer

Small family farmers can’t afford to hire Saxby’s son, that’s your problem..

Mableton Mom

Obviously you know nothing about georgia farms, hope you know more about childeren.

By Jimmy T.

May 21, 2008 6:43 PM | Link to this

jimmy t.again so you know wheat is 8.00 minus 4.00 for basis net 4.00to farmer. when cotton got to 90cents no buyer would talk. soybeans 13.00 minus 3.00 if buyers are buying. please tell me who is making the money? you jerks, the farmer who takes ALL the risks never comes out!

By Nick Mitchell

May 22, 2008 1:12 AM | Link to this

Former Bob Dole’s Chief of Staff, Stanley Hilton: Bush Authorized 911 Attacks

“This (9/11) was all planned. This was a government-ordered operation. Bush personally signed the order. He personally authorized the attacks. He is guilty of treason and mass murder.” –Stanley Hilton

http://www.infowars.com/?p=2278

By tom ga hunter

May 22, 2008 6:14 AM | Link to this

Poor Saxby can’t get anything Right……… (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

WASHINGTON — Democrats are picking up the pieces after an embarrassing technical gaffe that delayed a triumphant rejection of President Bush’s veto of a massive farm bill.

Members from both parties hoped to bring the $290 billion bill, which includes election-year subsidies for farmers and food stamps for the poor, back to their districts over Memorial Day. But that is looking less likely now that the legislation will have to be passed all over again due to a printing error.

The House voted overwhelmingly, 316-108, on Wednesday to override Bush’s veto of the legislation earlier in the day.

The Senate then was expected to follow suit quickly, but action stalled after the discovery that a 34-page section of the bill had been omitted from the printed bill sent to the White House. That means Bush vetoed a different bill from the one Congress passed, raising questions that the eventual law would be unconstitutional.

In order to avoid a partisan dustup, House Democrats hoped to pass the entire bill, again, on Thursday under expedited rules usually reserved for noncontroversial legislation, and the Senate was expected to follow suit. The correct version would then be sent to Bush under a new bill number for another expected veto.

Lawmakers also will have to pass an extension of current farm law, which expires Friday.

Bush says the legislation is too expensive and would send too much government money to wealthy farmers. A bipartisan group of negotiators on the bill made small cuts to subsidies to appease the White House, but Bush said it wasn’t enough.

By tom ga hunter

May 22, 2008 7:40 AM | Link to this

By GeorgiaValues……..

Good news for you more money from the Partons.Apparently the House Republican leadership has decided they need to act like Republicans & are actually & stand up for the TAXPAYER. Here’s the link to the article in the Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080520/NATION/76548637/1001

By Craig

May 22, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this

Perfect example of how our ag policy would make Leon Trotsky proud. This is planned economics at its finest. Any Republican who applauds this is smoking a Columbian ag product. Sorry, but if you cannot generate profit, then find another career. This is a free market concept. Don’t ask me to repeatedly bail you out on something you should have seen as not working. Why is it that this bill is better than Saxby’s “perfect” bill from 2002? He shoved that crap down our throats telling us he designed it and it was the best we can do. Odd how we have to keep patching up HIS failed expertise every time. Either Saxby is incompetent or he is the biggest panderer out there. Any way you cut it, this is far left economics. This is probably the best thing Bush has done by vetoing this garbage. The sad thing is conservatives in both houses will assist in overriding this veto.

By tom ga hunter

May 22, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this

By Dan Froomkin Special to washingtonpost.com Thursday, May 22, 2008; 12:07 PM

Add another chapter to the ignominious history of the Bush-era Congress. After seven years of going belly up on such defining issues as the war in Iraq, torture and taxes, the House finally gets up the gumption to override President Bush on a major piece of legislation. And what is it? A pork-laden, subsidy-filled $307 billion giveaway piled high with election-year goodies for everyone.

Yesterday’s farm bill override wasn’t a rebellion against Bush. It was a massive expression of self-interest.

Oh, and Congress couldn’t even do it right: A whole section of the 673-page bill never made it to the White House, so the bill Bush vetoed wasn’t the one the House overrode. Congress will apparently have to do it all over again.

No wonder Congress’s job-approval ratings are even lower than Bush’s. (The latest Zogby poll has Bush at an all-time low of 23 percent, positively towering over Congress at 11 percent.)

The battle over the farm bill found Bush in the position of arguing against subsidies for millionaire farmers and agribusiness.

By tom ga hunter

May 22, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this

Michael Grunwald, in an essay for Time titled “Farm Bill Phoniness,” wonders why Bush didn’t fight for votes a little harder: “When President Bush vetoed a ban on waterboarding and other forms of torture, congressional Republicans backed him. When Bush blocked an expansion of children’s health insurance, GOP votes sustained his veto again. But now, after Bush vetoed a bloated farm bill that will lavish billions of dollars on wealthy farmers who are already enjoying record commodity prices, the President suddenly can’t seem to rally his own party… .