Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2008 > May > 13 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USCongress deserves to reap veto of farm bill
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.
Permalink | Comments (70) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
Services »
Comments
By Mid-South Philosopher
May 13, 2008 8:22 AM | Link to this
Good morning, Jim
Your assessment of the farm bill is right on the money, my friend. Pardon the satire!
Too many Americans think that the “farm” is that 20-75 acres of land that grandpa…(Oh, I forgot my age in comparison to the the majority of today’s folks)…great-grandpa plowed and toiled over to make a living for his family. Those farms are largely gone today (eaten away by property taxes levied by the local barons and baronesses of the county commissions and other diseases).
Today, farms are large mega-operations(run by the capitalistic version of communists known as corporatists).
They like the other large mega-corporations live for the lord god of profit at all costs. So it is altogether expected that the Congress, which w******* itself to the lobbyists and monied interests, should give the farmers (wink, wink, nod, nod) a break.
What is surprising is that Georgie Bush may veto this legislation!
Realizing that his legacy is about as positive as a good case of poison ivy, Georgie needs to do something that will make him appear to be concerned with middle class America. He has created enough need for Vaseline among that group over the past seven years.
Come, January 20, 2009, come!
By HIDT
May 13, 2008 8:25 AM | Link to this
Amen, brother. Like health care, agriculture will work better with less government regulation.
By jbmlaw
May 13, 2008 8:38 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. All evidence is that democrats are writing the legislation these days. Nothing has changed, same old corporate welfare mentality there. When President Bush signed a similar bill in 2001, he lost a lot of conservative support. Perhaps he will do the right thing this time, instead of the “left thing.”
By George Washington
May 13, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this
Take this you stinin’s jesus freaks and zionists: “Albert Einstein described belief in God as “childish superstition” and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter to be sold in London this week, an auctioneer said Tuesday. The father of relativity, whose previously known views on religion have been more ambivalent and fuelled much discussion, made the comments in response to a philosopher in 1954.
As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they “have no different quality for me than all other people”.
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
“No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this,” he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper.
The German-language letter is being sold Thursday by Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, said the auction house’s managing director Rupert Powell.
In it, the renowned scientist, who declined an invitation to become Israel’s second president, rejected the idea that the Jews are God’s chosen people.
“For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions,” he said.
“And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people.”
And he added: “As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.”
Previously the great scientist’s comments on religion — such as “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” — have been the subject of much debate, used notably to back up arguments in favour of faith.
Powell said the letter being sold this week gave a clear reflection of Einstein’s real thoughts on the subject. “He’s fairly unequivocal as to what he’s saying. There’s no beating about the bush,” he told AFP.”
By tom ga hunter
May 13, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this
Thank you for writting about this rip off of the taxpayer & small farmer. I assume you meant to leave out that our CONSERVATIVE SENATOR SAXBY CHAMBLISS web site claims he is personally the author of this mess. Another paper I read says the the race horse subsidity is $473,000,000, they are wrong or Saxby’s office gave you a 1 year cost. I would hope that the paper would move this information to the front page & make a series out of it so we can all see what a mess our Congress is in. “W” has a chance to turn our party around, let’s hope he takes it. Thank you so much for this opinion.
By MADMOMMY
May 13, 2008 8:52 AM | Link to this
BUSH had better VETO this one. What a joke and Jim you hit the nail on the head. Why should someone who makes over $500,000 get a handout? I just don’t get it and nor do I want to, lets get this one off the books and move on to things that really affect the average tax paying American.
By songbird
May 13, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this
I’m confused this morning. Am I actually reading Wooten, jbmlaw, et al, criticizing tax breaks for the wealthy?
This sugar subsidy has been around for eons. It needs to disappear. This is the main reason for corn sweetener being used in everything instead of sugar.
By ron
May 13, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this
Good morning all,I doubt that anyone alive knows the true extent of the farm bill.Farmers can receive federal money for just about any reason that can be dreamed up,including the shuttle crash.Absolute insanity prevails with the writers of this bill every time it’s brought up.It’s beyond sickening.
By HIDT
May 13, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this
My father was a farmer and at the end of the year one time after all the expenses and proceeds were tallied, he said, “Well, I made $300 this year.” An optimistic soul, he just went out and planted the next year’s crop. He never asked for government help, but truth be told, did receive some, in that I don’t think it was a choice to opt out of price support programs.
By hogleg
May 13, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this
jim-your right on the money !
By Fix-It
May 13, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this
Why do farmers get subsidized? Isn’t that discrimination against me? I am an IT person, who bailed me out in 2000? Nobody; and nobody should be shoveling money to farmers. If we stopped the farm subsidies and giving money to other nations, we could have healthcare for everyone and lower taxes. WAKE UP AMERICA
By zeke
May 13, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this
ALWAYS IS! The so called farm bill is just another bill to rape taxpayers for the socialist agenda! School lunch programs have nothing to do with a farm bill! IT SHOULD BE VETOED!
By tom ga hunter
May 13, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this
HIDT ………..your father should have give Saxby the $300.00 & ask for a $1,000,000.00 subsidity, that’s the way the game is played.
By Just Nasty and Mean
May 13, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this
If a farmer cannot make a profit in this market of record-high farm product prices—he’s not a farmer.
On the other end, taxpayers should not be paying subsidies and price supports—and this is the perfect time to start weaning these politically connected leeches off the government t**.
Make no mistake, Saxby Chambliss is in the back pocket of his mega-farm buddies and could give a rat’s behind about taxpayers, his georgia constituents, conservatism, free market, or other principles of our forefathers.
If Saxby and Isakson don’t seem to want to get the message that working Americans are sick and tired of this Washington K-street racket, it is up to the Georgia voters to get them to understand we have had it with this crap.
Remember, Saxby was one of the smoke-filled-back-room conspirators slimeballs that attempted to shove amnesty down American’s throats. This was to appease his farm buddies willing to exchange American sovereignty for cheap labor—while pushing the cost (education, healthcare, welfare, housing) onto taxpayers.
Saxby— get this—-WE HAVE HAD IT WITH THIS FARM SUBSIDY SCAM. Either you work ot end it, or expect to get booted out!
By Taxpayer
May 13, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this
What we need is bi-partisan support to get rid of this needless spending. Let’s not stop with THIS wasteful spending though. Let’s be honest about OTHER expenditures and how they’re broken up and pushed through piecemeal or under cover of other bills, etc. Good start, Jim. Please tell us more. Honestly, there’s so much more to tell.
By Thor
May 13, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this
If you check Saxby’s campaign contributor list, you will see agriculture is in the top ten.
America is for sale.
By Frank
May 13, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this
Amazing how the author (Wooten) does not mention that the biggest increases over the past five years and under the new projected bill are the food welfare program. The food welfare program is two-thirds of the Farm bill budget ($200 billion).
Yea, I know, if it is for welfare it can not be touched. But you can beat up farmers who actually work to grow the food in the first place.
Not much “common sense conservatism” by Wooten.
By Taxpayer
May 13, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this
Perhaps our Republicans and Democrats need to compromise — that’s it — work together. For the good of the people. Perhaps they should take funding for the Iraq war and couple it with funding for Social Security in one bill. They could even agree to split it up into an endless series of quarterly bills and they could call it something different each quarter. That’s it — an honest compromise. It could even be veto-proof. Honestly, everyone would get what they wanted — a true compromise.
By Peter
May 13, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this
Yes it is all about the Farm Bill today….. Yes Bush is trying to save the American Public Money ?
Ex-State officials allege corruption in Iraq By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 14 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration repeatedly ignored corruption at the highest levels within the Iraqi government and kept secret potentially embarrassing information so as not to undermine its relationship with Baghdad, according to two former State Department employees.
Arthur Brennan, who briefly served in Baghdad as head of the department’s Office of Accountability and Transparency last year, and James Mattil, who worked as the chief of staff, told Senate Democrats on Monday that their office was understaffed and its warnings and recommendations ignored.
Brennan also alleges the State Department prevented a congressional staffer visiting Baghdad from talking with staffers by insisting they were too busy. In reality, Brennan said, the staffers were watching movies at the embassy and on their computers. The staffers’ workload had been cut dramatically because of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s “evisceration” of Iraq’s top anti-corruption office, he said.
The State Department’s policies “not only contradicted the anti-corruption mission but indirectly contributed to and has allowed corruption to fester at the highest levels of the Iraqi government,” Brennan told the Senate Democratic Policy Committee.
The U.S. embassy “effort against corruption — including its new centerpiece, the now-defunct Office of Accountability and Transparency — was little more than ‘window dressing,’” he added.
The Office of Accountability and Transparency, or “OAT” team, was intended to provide assistance and training to Iraq’s anti-corruption agencies. It was dismantled last December, after it alleged in a draft report leaked to the media that al-Maliki’s office had derailed or prevented investigations into Shiite-controlled agencies.
The draft report sparked hearings in Congress and prompted a showdown between Democrats and senior State Department officials on whether the public has a right to know the extent to which al-Maliki was involved in corruption cases.
Brennan charges the State Department never responded to his team’s report, which was retroactively classified because agency officials said it could hurt bilateral relations with Iraq. Other recommendations by the group also were kept secret, including a negative assessment of Iraq’s Joint Anti-Corruption Committee, Brennan said.
In July 2007, the OAT team concluded that the committee’s only purpose was to provide a forum for complaints against Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi, a top anti-corruption official in Baghdad whom many U.S. officials have hailed as the most effective in exposing fraud and abuse.
But information later released by the embassy ignored the team’s assessment and ultimately “failed to even mention what a disaster” the committee “really was,” Brennan said.
Brennan said he approved the embassy report against his better judgment but later regretted it.
Mattil, who worked with Brennan, made similar allegations. Specifically, he said the U.S. “remained silent in the face of an unrelenting campaign” by senior Iraqi officials to subvert Baghdad’s Commission on Public Integrity, which had been led by al-Radhi. Then, the U.S. turned its back on Iraqis who fled to the United States after being threatened for pursuing anti-corruption cases, he said.
“Since we have done so little (to undercut corruption), it’s easy to see why the government of Iraq has not done more,” said Mattil, who left the accountability office last October after having served for a year as its chief of staff. “We have demanded no better.”
Brennan was appointed as OAT director last summer and arrived in Baghdad in July. He left only a few weeks later after his wife was diagnosed with cancer. He stepped down from his position in August.
The State Department did not immediately provide comment. Iraqi government officials could not be reached.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, head of the Democratic Policy Committee, said the latest testimony is disheartening in light of al-Radhi’s previous estimate that corruption had cost Iraq — and U.S. taxpayers — some $18 billion.
“One would have expected that our own government would have been doing everything it could to support” Iraq’s anti-corruption efforts, said Dorgan, D-N.D.
But “that was simply not the case. On the contrary, our own government contributed to the culture of corruption,” he added.
Seems like small potatoes compared to this…..
By Captain
May 13, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this
See what happens when the Dimokrats realize that they can buy votes with our money and after the last 4 years the Repubics are doing the same thing. Isn’t there a section in the Constitution that states that if the government stops being responsive to the people that a Congress may be conviened and a new document written? I think we have reached that time. The Federal Gov is responsinve to only one thing…self continuation of jobs.
By Farmer Brown
May 13, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
These articles get confusing. Some say farmers shouldn’t receive any subsidies when they make over $200,000 in adjusted gross income, some say non-farm income (like this article does), some say in sales, and some say income. All of these are different and how can the general public really be informed when all the articles aren’t even consistent?
There is all this talk about record prices but my local price wheat was $15.10 high in February and now is at $7.32 in May. We are a long way from record prices, infact it has fallen over 50%. Most farmers had sold their wheat last year for less than what the price is now and forward contracts never got nearly as high as the old crop did in February. There is no talk of how much commodity prices have fallen.
The reality is most farmers weren’t able to capitalize on the record prices yet costs have gone up tremendously. Fertilizer, fuel, and chemicals have gone up creating a lot higher bottom line so most of the higher costs goes to pay the bills.
A combine is close to $350,000 and a tractor is $250,000 and add up a planter or drill at $100,000 and then say that $200,000 earnings is rich for a farmer when it won’t even pay for the basic equipment needed by a full time small farmer.
There needs to be a safety net to assure there is an adequate supply of food available at a reasonable cost.
By Shar
May 13, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this
The Farm Bill is also catastrophic from a nutritional standpoint. Ninety percent of the direct payments to farmers flow to the producers of just five commodity crops: rice, corn, wheat, soybeans and cotton. Farmers of fresh produce and organic farmers must somehow survive without the largesse bestowed so liberally on the lobbyist-heavy commodity growers. This means that food that is largely derived from the underwritten commodity products are cheap to buy but the nutritionally dense fresh produce is expensive. The grocery cart of a person of limited means will therefore have way too many Fritos (corn and soy oil) and Coke (corn syrup) and not enough broccoli, contributing to obesity and the attendant heart, hypertension and diabetes side effects that are showing explosive growth.
Frank @ 10:10, the “food welfare” you mention consists of school nutrition and food stamp programs. Yes, they are a huge component of the Bill (although if you take out the budgetary chicanery designed to camouflage the payments to farmers it is not the two thirds you mention), but if they were not there would be no chance of passing the farmer welfare portions. The farm state representatives insisted on coupling those programs in order to shove through the larger and larger farm payouts.
Farm revenues are at record highs, as is the price of farm land. Almost all major commodity farming is done by large corporations now, not the romanticized family farmer, and these corporations have worked with Congress to create subsidies that are not only heinously large but are paid out on crops that are not even planted, just which have been planted in the past. The current Farm Bill disregards market prices altogether, guaranteeing taxpayer funding to farmers at increased rates regardless of how much money they sell their crops for. It is outrageous from every perspective.
And, jbmlaw, Saxby Chambliss is a prime driver, not “democrats”. I have written to his office twice, protesting the Bill, and have received roboletters in reply touting his authorship and his pride in “protecting American farmers”. It is the only issue on which he has stood in opposition to the Bush Administration. For that alone he should be retired in November.
By Dusty
May 13, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this
Well, before we lose our heads completely over this Democratic Farm Bill (Democrats are in control of Congress) let us remember that the USA is one of the greatest food producers in the world. We do not wish to change that.
Perhaps the question should be, will America continue to be a great producer of food or not. I think we will be.
I do not like what sounds like million dollar government handouts to any kind of producer for two reasons. First, it puts the government in control and not the producer, another loss of American freedom. Second, it is not fair to subsidize one business, whether farming or not, and not another.
So I would say to Congress and the President, cut out the subsidies for ALL productions.
NO SUBSIDIES (handouts) for anybody. That will hit a lot of businesses and a lot of people. Perhaps that is why Congress passes such bills. There are so many people and companies wanting “government handouts”. These “beggers” seem to forget that their taxes are the “bank”. Congress thinks they are pleasing the most people.
Let us stop asking and be the independent people we once were.
By Malpitts
May 13, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this
The farm bill is not part of the socialist or liberal agenda. It is the result of members of congress of both parties selling their votes for campaign contributions, as they have for decades, no matter which party has been in charge, to benefit big agribusiness at the expense of taxpayers and consumers. True liberals and true conservatives should be able to agree that this is terrible public policy.
By HIDT
May 13, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
Dusty wrote: “So I would say to Congress and the President, cut out the subsidies for ALL productions.”
Amen, sister.
By Mike
May 13, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this
I would love to see bipartisan support to stop this nonsense. Unfortunately, the only times both sides of the aisle in DC seem to agree is when they think they are all buying votes.
By Amazed
May 13, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
Saxy Chambliss is a Democrat, Dusty? I thought he was one of yours. Huh…. You learn something new every day here in Wooten Land.
By jbmlaw
May 13, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this
Dear Peter @ 10:15, if I read your cut and paste correctly, we have corruption among the bureaucrats in the State department. You’ve sold me. Eliminate all state department jobs other than the Secretary. Let her hire some translators, and otherwise get rid of them all. Those incompetents have worked to undermine the Bush foreign policy from the beginning.
Dear Shar @ 10:34, last I saw Saxbe claimed to be a republican. How is he the “prime” mover of a bill through the democrat controlled senate (or is someone else in control of the senate?) The legislative body gets the blame for legislation, and whoever is in charge gets the primary blame. As much as I admire your intellectual capacity, I’m not going to let you get away with some silly argument that Saxbe fooled the majority. I blame all who vote for the bill, but that seems to me to be mostly democrats.
By Frank
May 13, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this
To the above comment that the food welfare program is for school nutrition and food stamps, you are correct. And that is food welfare. I went to school without those programs and I remember there being no food stamps. Of course, this has become so ingrained as part of the status quo that no one looks at as welfare, which it is.
Want to get rid of farm welfare- fine by me! But let’s get rid of all the welfare and stop harping on one small part of it being farm welfare. At least farmers are actually doing something rather than sucking us dry. They actually produce the food you eat!!!
By fred
May 13, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this
Farmers receive payments from the government because they don’t get the opportunity to actually free market their products. The payments to farmers is a miniscule portion of the farm bill. There are so many things added on to the “farm bill” that farmers are actually a minority beneficiary of the program.
Public perception, which is generally formed by the press, is that if a farmer receives a payment that it is all net income, but farmers are like everyone else. The costs of production are increasing, due to higher fuel, fertilize, and chemical prices. I purchased 2.5 gallons of generic Roundup last year ( a chemical for weed control). Last year it cost $37.00. This year $93.00. I figure that’s about a 250% increase. How’s your automobile fuel price this year compared to last year? Diesel is about the same.
If the government gets out of the farm program, you’ll pay farm subsidies at the grocery store. If you think your food bill is high now, just wait.
Like they say, “Be careful what you ask for; you just might get it.”
By Glenn
May 13, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
I voted for Saxby Chambliss, but this is breaking my taxpaying back. I own and live on a farm, but I do not deserve the citizens of this country to pay me to make a living. We were cattle farmers for over 40 years and did not get one dime subsidy from the federal gov’t. Why should grain or cotton farmers get any? Grow up farmers the t** is getting dry. If you can’t do it without federal help, let someone else do it, we did.
By Jim's a Cherry Picker
May 13, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
Hi Jim,
Nice Cherry Picking today….blaming congress and all.
A guy in your position should be able to see behind the curtain here. Congress is just the smoking end of the lobbyists’s gun. And the lobbyists are just doing their jobs…it’s a free market system, working the way it’s supposed to work. Business doing business.
I thought you liked that kinda stuff…is government supposed to tell business that it can’t have it’s crack? Are those libs supposed to deny Cargill and ADM their lifeblood?
Are those poor farmers supposed to do without their fix?
Will George veto the legislation?
Me thinks not.
Anywho…nice cherry picking.
By Dennis
May 13, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten writes, “Taxpayers buy sugar at roughly twice the world price and, heretofore, stored it for sale back when supplies were tight.”
Even then, Mr. Wooten, it’s still not an expensive item.
When are you going to complain about the run-up costs to the Iraq war, Mr. Wooten? Including the lives of American soldiers?
When are American troops going to be welcomed as liberators?
What exactly do you mean by this statement, Mr. Wooten, “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.”
Are you talking about expunge individual farmers, or are you talking about expunge even big corporate ConAgras?
That’s not being a good Republican neocon, is it?
Seems you’r getting on the liberal wagon, Mr. Wooten.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Taxpayer
May 13, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
Good morning again. I see Dusty did not attack me as being a liberal again today. Good for her. My wife and I were out walking up the mountain yesterday and I noticed that the ground was just covered up with blueberries. I mean there had to be millions of them. Last year, I don’t recall seeing any. I guess we didn’t get a harmful late freeze this time around. Anyway, I wonder if I could get a farm subsidy to pay for some migrant workers to go up the mountain and pick blueberries for me. It’s in the National Forest so the work would have to be done by hand — no motorized vehicles allowed. The only downside is that the black bears might get upset and eat a few workers to make up for the lost berries. I guess Saxby could introduce a bill to give the fallen workers amnesty, posthumously, in honor of their valiant efforts to provide blueberries to needy American families. Of course, they could always pay me not to pick the berries. That would work too.
By Dusty
May 13, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
Amazed@11:08
So you learned something today? Good! That’s a first for most libs.
Saxby is a Republican. Like most Republicans, he has the ability to think, agree or disagree. Perhaps he saw something in the farm bill that I didn’t see. He likes it. President Bush is also a Republican. I don’t believe he sees something he likes and will veto this bill. It will work out the American way.
The American way is the way Republicans “work”. They can think on their own and not rely on rote info to tell them how to decide. That’s the way I like it. Try it sometimes. You, too, may like it.
By Dusty
May 13, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this
Dear Taxpayer@11:24
You are still a liberal but…..all is forgiven if you send me a quart of blueberries. Let’s call it a subsidy and you won’t mind.
I’m waiting……..
By Shar
May 13, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this
Jbmlaw: Chambliss chaired the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Mining until 2006. He’s now the ranking Republican member. As you and I both know, this Bill has been several years in the making, and his has been a primary voice in its development. He’s proud of that fact, too.
Frank: The farmers are being paid for food they don’t even plant. Food stamps and school lunches, abused programs that they are, at least give basic aid to people who might otherwise go hungry. Farm subsidies flow to farmers making $750,000 a year, or $1.5 million if married, and are the largest corporate welfare program in the US.
The original purpose of the Farm Bill was to protect the American farmer from catastrophic loss or unanticipatable plunges in price. It has veered off into incaluable waste and corruption, and the gaming of the system has actually driven up the price of farmland to such an extent that a young farmer cannot afford to buy or a farm estate to pass to farming heirs, driving out individuals and leaving corporations to gobble up the land (and subsidies).
Sonny Perdue’s suspension yesterday of the gas tax on offroad diesel for farmers and timber growers is just another example of the poitical welfare that farmers receive at the expense of the rest of us.
The “food welfare” and “farmer welfare” elements should be uncoupled and examined on their own seperate merits, and the payouts returned to their original purposes. Corporate farms should not be eligible for taxpayer largesse.
By Saxby
May 13, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this
I am a Southern Republican — that’s a former Georgia Democrat for those of you that don’t know how Georgia politics works. Now you just keep up the foolishness and I’ll sic Zell on you to straighten you out. I’ll be a Southern Democrat again if the need arises.
By AtlDWP
May 13, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this
Find out WHO got their money at:
http://farm.ewg.org/sites/farmbill2007/
I searched and found my former multi-millionaire boss gets an annual subsidy for his recreational horses he owns in Alabama to the tune of about $50,000.00 per year. Not right.
By Taxpayer
May 13, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this
Dusty,
For you, I’ll not only send the blueberries, I’ll send along one of the families of black bears that like to have fun with my garbage. There’s actually three different families that come through. They also had fun with my corn crop as well. Unfortunately, I didn’t have no government subsidy to offset my losses since it was just a little 75 ft x 75 ft area for my family. You see, Dusty, I don’t ask for handouts and I don’t expect any. Sometimes though we get us a liberal president such as GW who does not veto — quite the contrary — a stupid tax prebate, among other liberal things. Gotta go.
By Dustrag
May 13, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this
Dusty,
How are you able to be an expert about every topic Wooten writes about? With that kind of intellect why aren’t you out saving the world instead of wasting your time on this bush league (pun intended) political blog?
By Dusty
May 13, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this
By golly, Shar now knows all about farming. Can’t picture her in an apron and boots feeding the mule.
But she knows where to send money. Ok to all “welfare recipients” but not to greedy corporate farmers. Yeah, let’s be picky.
Well, she may have a point. I had rather stop ALL subsidies. Charity is not welfare or subsidy. It comes from the heart, not the government, and does not encourage dependency or socialism. But that is another discussion.
By willie b
May 13, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this
taxpayer…DON’T send Dustmop the blueberries or the bears…The bears will be traumatized for life, and who knows what she’ll do with the blueberries…Besides she can’t be trusted she still owes me four bananas!
By Dusty
May 13, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this
Dear Taxpayer@11:50
Nevermind the bears, just send the blueberries. I already have a ‘possum and a feral cat that drop by. Not to mention the hawk who keeps his eye on my bird feeder most of the time.
But you are right, Taxie! If you live in the mountains (resort) you don’t need NO tax rebate. I admit that the President has a liberal heart within his Republican constitution. But I forgive him for that. We all need to “have a heart”. The President has been looking after our welfare from terrorists for a long time. You just did not notice.
By Dusty
May 13, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this
Dustrag@11:52
Dear raggedy, I AM out saving the world. Aren’t you? I come here in my spare time to combat ignorance, another worthy cause.
But glad you reminded me. Thank you. It is getting late. It’s STW (Save The World)time and I must get busy.
Be sweet now. Bye….
By tom ga hunter
May 13, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this
Early I did a cut & paste on this & sent the 20 most conservative friends, with the title “Chambliss screws the tax payer again”. So far I have had 8 emails & 2 phone calls promicing to work against Chambliss. Please do the same & see what happens.
By dirty harry
May 13, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this
Dusty…Oh! Wise one. Please go forward with your crusade to combat ignorance. I’m sure one and all are all ears.
Yesterday you made this typical of you; ignorant statement..
“But you are typical of the twisted left. Still sulking over your losses, still losing, and set up for another loss.”
What losses?
In two recent elections for congressional seats (both held a long time by republicans) democrats won! Louisiana and Illinois…
Vito Fosella(R-Family Values) was recently arrested for a DUI and ensuingly it was found out he has.. Oh,no how can it be a LOVE CHILD!
When you lose two elections and have another repug(FAMILY VALUES CHAMPION) about to go away…I would hardly call that losing.
By Craig(aka Anonymous)
May 13, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this
My wife’s cousin is a “farmer” and county commissioner in Mitchell County. We wondered how her cousin was able to live so well off of some chicken houses and a few head of cattle. My wife discovered on the Internet that he’s received over $1M from the USDA over the past decade. How many more Reggie Bosticks are there?(Yes, I’m old school: One should earn what one gets.)
By James
May 13, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this
As a long-time supporter, I’m embarrassed by Saxby Chambliss on this issue. Why’s he such a w******* for the farming industry?
By Taxpayer
May 13, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
willie b says you have to pay up with those bananas you owe him first. No blueberries for you. You sure sound like a government employee. They’re always the first ones to defend the government officials. After all, you wouldn’t want to cut your own financial throat, would you. I’ve seen your kind before. Always complaining about liberal policies in public but always keeping that hand out to the government for everything you own. You are just like all the elected officials — you put on a show for the public and stick it to the taxpayer as soon as their back is turned. You don’t fool me. You’re the worst kind of liberal — a closet liberal. Come on out and show yourself.
By Peter
May 13, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this
Here is another way BUSH is trying to save Americans Money…….He Buys OIL when it is most expensive !
He is doing SUCH a GREAT JOB…. His approval Polls show that !
Senate says stop putting oil into US reserves By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer 28 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Senate, in a direct challenge to President Bush, voted Tuesday to temporarily halt the shipment of thousands of barrels of oil a day into the government’s emergency reserve.
Both Democrats and Republicans said such shipments make no sense when oil is costing more than $120 a barrel and could better be used to add supplies to a tight market and possibly lower prices. “We are buying the most expensive crude oil in the history of the world and storing it,” said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. “When American consumers are burning at the stake by high energy prices, the government ought not be carrying the wood.”
Until both chambers of Congress pass the emergency reserve directive and Bush signs it — or Congress enacts it over a presidential veto — the legislation has no force of law. But the Senate’s message to the president Tuesday was a strong one.
With Republicans joining Democrats, senators voted 97-1 to suspend the shipments — averaging about 70,000 barrels a day — until the end of the year. Only Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., voted against the measure.
The House was scheduled to vote on a similar directive later in the day. The Senate measure was added to legislation on flood insurance that passed shortly after the oil reserve vote.
Bush has been steadfast in continuing shipments of oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a system of underground salt domes on the Gulf Coast, arguing that the stockpile should be filled to its maximum capacity of 727 million barrels. It currently is 97 percent full at 701 million barrels, equal to two months of oil imports.
The reserve was created in the 1970s as a precaution against major interruptions of oil supplies.
Senators said the stockpile is big enough to meet any emergency.
Dorgan acknowledged that Tuesday’s vote was “a small step forward” as Congress grapples with ways to respond to soaring fuel prices that have pushed gasoline prices to nearly $4 a gallon after a winter of record heating bills.
It’s uncertain how much effect — if any — putting 70,000 barrels a day of crude onto the U.S. market that uses more than 21 million barrels a day would have. Dorgan said it could send a signal and curb market speculation.
“It could have a chance of reducing the price a small amount,” said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who joined the chorus against continuing the shipments. “But make no bones about it, this is no big energy policy. This is one little thing we can do.”
Yes Bush is DOING GREAT……..for HIS FAMILY’s OIL Business!
By bit
May 13, 2008 1:46 PM | Link to this
Food prices going up between 20 and 70 percent a year will make growing hungry common among a lot of people here, not just in third world countries. An agricultural policy that encourages that trend makes no sense whatsoever.
The only foods that should be subsidized are those with high nutritional value, such as fruits and vegetables and soy. The costs we pay to do this will be more than offset in decreased health costs due to heart disease, kidney disease, diabetes, cancer, and other high dollar cost diseases.
We should not be subsidizing people whose only relation to farming is that they built million dollar houses on former farmland but are growing nothing.
By Peter
May 13, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this
Hey All Dusty works for the CDC according to her statements on this Blog….
Yes she is a government employee………that is why she “WASTES” so much time writing here…..
She is actually ripping us OFF by wasting our tax dollars…….she is doing this on the clock while being paid.
So you see she is really NOT a True American !
But hey that is what really being a “Wrong Winger” is all about !
More of the “Family Values” we all hear about !
By Redneck Convert
May 13, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this
Well, my buddy Jim Earl says the price of beer is so high on account of farmers getting paid by the guvmint not to grow the stuff you make beer out of. Betwixt that and the cost of gas, its hard for a beer truck driver to make any money.
And Joe Bill says this Saxby Chambliss is just a w** for the big farmers, only he wears panties to cover things up oncet in a while.
Anyhow, whatever Sister Dusty and jbmlaw say goes for me too. They know everything about everything, so I reckon there’s nothing else to say about it. Speaking of Sister Dusty, I wonder if farmers are getting paid not to grow the grapes her wine is made out of.
But I see all this griping on this blog, and people will gripe about Saxby Chambliss. But when the same people go to the polls they’ll pull the handle for old Saxby faster than Sister Dusty can yell Trader at somebody and then cut and run. Anything with a R behind it will do for them. You can count on a GA Republican to do the same thing over and over.
Anyway, I’m thinking about turning the woods behind the trailer into a farm. I figure if the guvmint will send me $35,000 a year not to plant anything on it I won’t need to drive this beer truck any more. And I’ll have old Saxby in my back pocket to make sure I get all the breaks. You can slip the word to him that I vote Republican every time.
It looks like this Clinton woman will win West Virginia big-time today. My buddy Jim Earl says a West Virginian is just a GA redneck that don’t like grits. They think its cream of wheat up there. West Virginians don’t like Those People and towel-heads any better than we do. But nobody running for president has won without carrying West Virginia for the last 90 years, and that’s my ace in the hole.
Have a good day everybody.
By Taxpayer
May 13, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this
It’s OK Dusty. You don’t really have to come out of the closet. I’ll forgive you even if you don’t confess that biggest sin of all southern sins — being a liberal. I know you’ll come out when you’re ready. You have a nice day, you hear. Goody bye now.
By ron
May 13, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this
Redneck,I hate to bring this up but Dusty’s wine has a screw cap and it’s main ingredient is suspected to be kerosene.That’s why the price is rising so fast.
By jbmlaw
May 13, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this
Dear Jim Wooten, if I pay your qualification fee, will you run for the senate this year?
By jbmlaw
May 13, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this
Dear Jim Wooten, never mind, I see it is too late to run as a Republican. I guess we’re stuck with him again.
By Redneck Convert
May 13, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this
Dear Ron guy, you must have things mixed up. Sister Dusty’s moonshine may have a little kerosene in it, but I doubt her wine does. You can always tell when she’s drinking a little shine. The calls of Trader speed up and she’s very nasty with people. She’s kind of mellow when she’s on the grape.
By George Washington
May 13, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this
Dusty confuses the hours she is paid to process pap smears with her spare time…hey dirty ball, if you are on the clock when you post, you are stealing from your employer…hmmm, any of those pap smears for medicare or medicaid? If so, ah thing we got our selves a FEDERAL CASE here….
By Peter
May 13, 2008 4:50 PM | Link to this
So he should be the next President ?
John McCain says he’s a defender of democracy. But the folks running his campaign have been playing for the other team.
Two of John McCain’s senior campaign staff were forced to resign this week after revelations that their lobbying firm was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to represent Burma’s brutal military dictatorship.
And it gets worse—turns out this goes all the way to the top. Charlie Black, McCain’s campaign chairman, ran a lobbying firm that represented brutal dictators like Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines and Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire—along with terrorist rebel Jonas Savimbi in Angola. Together, these men have been responsible for massive human suffering.
And for good measure, Charlie Black has represented war profiteer Blackwater Worldwide and Iraqi fraudster Ahmed Chalabi.
By BuckheadBill
May 13, 2008 5:45 PM | Link to this
I have a soft spot in my heart for Mr. Roosevelt’s farm programs. You do know that he started this mess, don’t you. My daddy always said that he plowed up 2 acres of cotton in 1933 to pay the doctor that helped me into this old world. He also said as he was bailing me out of jail one time that it didn’t seem to be as good a deal now as it did back then.
By Glenn
May 13, 2008 5:53 PM | Link to this
Just as we’ve so long suspected, it was all FDR’s fault.
By Anonymous
May 14, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this
While many of you agree that this farm bill should be vetoed, there will always be a farm bill. The farmers are waiting for the bill to go through before planning their crops this year and they only keep extending the 2002 Farm Bill. With the volatility of the agriculture markets, some kind of bill must be passed and soon.
By Mark
May 14, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this
If you haven’t been on a farm, you shouldn’t say anything. Go work on a farm for 1 day and you’ll get your head out of your a*.
Record high prices? That’s because 6 Billion people need to eat and demand is going up. Very few people could afford to grow it b/c the price was so low last year. Now, stop production and there’s wheat for about 1 month and it’s gone. The demand for wheat (was $20+/bu and is around $10 today) is high b/c urban population is outpacing what producers. Even if farmers are profiting, it’s about time. Swine prices have been .15/lb, milk .09 cents/lb (yes milk is sold by the lb.), oats to .17/bu, wheat $2.00/bu, on and on.
Also, 6 BILLION people need to eat and the demand for food is skyrocketing. No farmer, no food, and you’re f*ed. At least city slackers will lose some weight.
Every other country in the world subsidizes its agriculture. Take that away from US producers and no one could afford to operate. Guess how much your food will cost and then wonder where the money goes. 70% of the Farm Bill buys food stamps about 20% actually goes to ag producers. Ask your metro members of congress why so much goes to nutrition and they’ll tell you the farmers get too much money.
The income you idiots reference is GROSS income, make it NET, add in $4.50/gallon diesel, a $300,000 combine, $200,000 tractor, $1,000 anhydrous, land at reaching $1,500/acre, drought conditions in many places, labor (a dairy farmer gets NO days off and milks twice EVERY DAY, if you’re an urbanite—milk comes from cows).
If you’re upset by this Farm Bill, don’t eat.
By statecensible510waterheatercori
August 19, 2008 6:40 PM | Link to this
Your site- www.ajc.com is good site, good job, webmaster. And look at this http://carolinecs.150m.com/state_water_heaters.html > state water heaters
By BuyViagraOnlineOvargreaksvam
August 20, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this
Your site- www.ajc.com is amazing site, thanks, owner. viagra http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/member.php?u=25882 > buy viagra online drugs.
By usyngvzj bztpag
February 19, 2009 1:05 AM | Link to this
whdc qmycg rmqnaj vndurxf lrwo jdfw jsbl
By usyngvzj bztpag
February 19, 2009 1:06 AM | Link to this
whdc qmycg rmqnaj vndurxf lrwo jdfw jsbl
By usyngvzj bztpag
February 19, 2009 1:07 AM | Link to this
whdc qmycg rmqnaj vndurxf lrwo jdfw jsbl