# Bush vetoes farm bill



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Bush vetoes farm bill *

By DEB RIECHMANN 
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush vetoed the $300 billion farm bill on Wednesday, calling it a tax increase on regular Americans at a time of high food prices in the face of a near-certain override by Congress.

It was the 10th veto of Bush's presidency. But since it passed both houses of Congress with veto-proof majorities, his action will likely be overridden.

The president believes the legislation is fiscally irresponsible and gives away too much money to wealthy farmers, yet his criticism rang hollow with lawmakers from both parties who voted for increased crop subsidies, food stamps for the poor and other goodies to help their districts in an election year.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said lawmakers should think twice before they override Bush's veto.

"Members are going to have to think about how they will explain these votes back in their districts at a time when prices are on the rise," she said. "People are not going to want to see their taxes increase."

Perino said the bill is $20 billion over the current baseline - "way too much to ask taxpayers right now."

"This bill is bloated," she said. "When grocery bills are on the rise, Congress is asking families to pay more in subsidies to wealthy farmers at a time of record farm profits."

In announcing Bush's veto, White House budget director Jim Nussle said Bush rejected it because it increases federal spending. He said Americans are frustrated with wasteful government spending and the funneling of taxpayer funds to pet projects. "This only worsens the frustration that they will feel," Nussle said, adding that Congress should extend the current farm bill.

About two-thirds of the bill would pay for nutrition programs such as food stamps and emergency food aid for the needy. An additional $40 billion is for farm subsidies while almost $30 billion would go to farmers to idle their land and to other environmental programs.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said that the measure will drastically increase nutrition initiatives that will help 38 million U.S. families put food on their tables. She made it clear she would have preferred smaller farm subsidies, but deferred to some Democratic colleagues looking ahead to the fall campaign.

Some Republicans criticized the mostly bipartisan and popular bill because a few home-state pet causes, including tax breaks for Kentucky racehorse owners and additional aid for salmon fishermen in the Pacific Northwest.

The bill also would:

-Boost nutrition programs, including food stamps and emergency domestic food aid, by more than $10 billion over 10 years. It would expand a program to provide fresh fruits and vegetables to schoolchildren.

-Increase subsidies for certain crops, including fruits and vegetables excluded from previous farm bills.

-Extend dairy programs.

-Increase loan rates for sugar producers.

-Urge the government to buy surplus sugar and sell it to ethanol producers for use in a mixture with corn.

-Cut a per-gallon ethanol tax credit for refiners from 51 cents to 45 cents. The credit supports the blending of fuel with the corn-based additive. More money would go to cellulosic ethanol, made from plant matter.

-Require that meats and other fresh foods carry labels with their country of origin.

-Stop allowing farmers to collect subsidies for multiple farm businesses.

-Reopen a major discrimination case against the Agriculture Department. Thousands of black farmers who missed a deadline would get a chance to file claims alleging they were denied loans or other subsidies.

-Pay farmers for weather-related farm losses from a new $3.8 billion disaster relief fund.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

this will pale in comparison to the Obama tax hikes, if he gets elected.
with oil and food prices escalating at record rates, an Obama model to ensure "fairness" will create a whole new class of poor people in this country. yep, i can't wait for the next change, it's called a revolution!


----------



## WhoaThereBigFella (Dec 30, 2007)

One of Bush's best decisions made to date. Leave it to both houses of congress to screw this up.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I guess its the cynic in me but why didn't Bush veto alot of other pork laden stuff for the last 8 years?

While I am glad he vetoed this, you have to wonder if its all a ploy because he knows they will override.

I am so disgusted with the republicans they seemingly are no different than the Dems.

The farm bill is a disgrace and all the food stamp stuff ect should be voted on in seperate bills and on its merit instead of being cloaked in a "farm bill" which most of our stupid electorate will never even understand.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

On the news this morning they said the democrats added something to the farm bill that they forgot to include. Then they overrode the presidents veto in the house. The senate is expected to override today.

You certainly can tell it's an election year. What I don't understand is why do politicians think they will get more votes when they take money from so many and give it to a group that made a killing last harvest.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Error may force 'do-over' of U.S. farm bill veto*
Associated Press
Published Thursday, May 22, 2008

WASHINGTON - The House overwhelmingly rejected President Bush's veto Wednesday of a $290 billion farm bill, but what should have been a stinging defeat for the president became an embarrassment for Democrats.

Only hours before the House's 316-108 vote, Bush had vetoed the five-year measure, saying it was too expensive and gave too much money to wealthy farmers when farm incomes are high. The Senate then was expected to follow suit quickly.

Action stalled, however, after the discovery that Congress had omitted a 34-page section of the bill when lawmakers sent the massive measure 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 potential problems, House Democrats hoped to pass the entire bill, again, today under expedited rules usually reserved for unopposed legislation. The Senate was expected to follow suit. The correct version would then be sent to Bush under a new bill number.

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

The White House seized on the fumble and said the mix-up could give Congress time to fix the "bloated" bill.

"We are trying to understand the ramifications of this congressional farm bill foul-up. We haven't found a precedent for a congressional blunder of this magnitude," said Scott Stanzel, a White House spokesman. "It looks like it may be back to square one for them."

A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shot back. "Partisan sniping won't solve this clerical error that even the White House failed to catch," Drew Hammill said.

The legislation includes election-year subsidies for farmers and food stamps for the poor - spending that lawmakers could promote when they are back in their districts over the Memorial Day weekend.

The veto was the 10th of Bush's presidency. Congress so far has overridden him once, on a water projects bill.

With Bush at record lows in the polls in the waning months of his term, it was fellow Republicans who joined with majority Democrats in rejecting the veto. GOP lawmakers are anxious about their own prospects less than six months from the Election Day.

About two-thirds of the bill would pay for nutrition programs such as food stamps; about $40 billion is for farm subsidies; and additional $30 billion would go to farmers to idle their land and to other environmental programs.

Congressional Republicans overwhelmingly abandoned Bush in voting to pass the bill last week, overlooking its cost amid public concern about the weak economy and high gas and grocery prices. Supporters praised the spending on food stamps and emergency food aid.

Before the problem with the bill was discovered, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the legislation could make the situation worse for struggling families.

"Members are going to have to think about how they will explain these votes back in their districts at a time when prices are on the rise," she said. "People are not going to want to see their taxes increase."

Bush said the legislation needlessly would expand government. He cited one new program in the bill that would pay more to corn growers and others if agriculture revenue were to drop significantly in the next five years. This program, he said, could add billions of dollars to the cost of the bill.

He added that minor cutbacks to subsidies for wealthy farmers were not sufficient.

"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," the president said in his veto message.

Wednesday's snag stemmed from an error made while printing the legislation on parchment before sending it to Bush.

Democratic Rep. Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, said the section in question - which deals with trade and international food aid programs - was never printed. Indeed, the final, 628-page version of the bill jumps straight from "Title II" on conservation programs to "Title IV" on nutrition programs.

Democrats originally proposed bringing up and passing the missing section separately and sending that to Bush, thus allowing the entire measure to become law. But Republicans argued that might not be constitutional because Bush actually vetoed a version that Congress never considered.

The underlying bill would make small cuts to direct payments, which are distributed to some farmers no matter how much they grow. It also would eliminate some payments to individuals with more than $750,000 in annual farm income - or married farmers who make more than $1.5 million.

Individuals who make more than $500,000 or couples who make more than $1 million jointly in nonfarm income also would not be eligible for subsidies.

Under current law, there is no income limit for farmers, and married couples who make less than one-fourth of their income from farming will not receive subsidies if their joint income exceeds $5 million.

The farm bill also would:

-Boost nutrition programs, including food stamps and emergency domestic food aid, by more than $10 billion over 10 years. It would expand a program to provide fresh fruits and vegetables to schoolchildren.

-Cut a per-gallon ethanol tax credit for refiners from 51 cents to 45 cents. The credit supports the blending of fuel with the corn-based additive. More money would go to cellulosic ethanol, made from plant matter.

-Require that meats and other fresh foods carry labels with their country of origin.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

congress is disgusting heres another example of their PORK EARMARKS crap
They just dont have the ethics and guts to intorduce and pass bill on their merits

MSNBC.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate loads up war funding bill 
Adds funding for domestic programs to president's war request
The Associated Press
updated 3:39 p.m. ET, Tues., May. 20, 2008
WASHINGTON - The Senate Tuesday kicked off debate on legislation to add a grab bag of domestic programs to President Bush's war request, including work permits for immigrant farm labor and heating subsidies for the poor. The White House renewed its veto threat.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., brought up the add-ons in an unusual move designed to win their adoption - over opposition from the White House and GOP conservatives - before turning to companion legislation providing $165 billion to conduct military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next spring.

The bill before the Senate would add more than $28 billion to Bush's budget request for this year and next, with almost $50 billion more for a big expansion of veterans benefits under the GI Bill from 2010-2018.

Reid faces enormous procedural headaches in getting the war funding bill - and its various add-ons - passed this week. Democrats have divided the war funding bill into two components: non-war add-ons and Iraq funding and policy restrictions. Reid has signaled he wants the non-war extras to get a vote before the war funding itself, but it's a high-wire strategy.

"It is going to be extremely difficult for us to get from where we are today to completing this legislation," Reid said.

Senate Republicans seemed to suggest they'll let the add-ons advance to a Bush veto rather than filibustering them this week.

"Once the veto is sustained, we'll have a chance to figure out exactly how to actually enact this legislation and get the funding to the troops," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Tuesday.

The new GI Bill and Democratic priorities like extending unemployment benefits are among the big-ticket add-ons, both of which have drawn veto threats. There's also $50 million to track down child predators, $400 million to help rural schools and $350 million to fight western wildfires, just for starters.

Last spending bill before Election Day?

Senators are acting as if the war funding bill coming to the floor Tuesday is the last train leaving the station, and, *as a result, have added billions of dollars for pet programs and hitched on several policy "riders" as well*. Few if any other spending bills are likely to come before the Senate this election year, which makes the supplemental measure an even more attractive vehicle for carrying spending proposals that would otherwise stall.

The White House is fighting the add-ons much more vigorously than it did during last year's bruising war funding debate. Then, it accepted $17 billion in spending that Bush didn't ask for as the price for getting an Iraq war funding bill that didn't tie his hands on the war.

Now that it's clear that Democrats won't insist on a troop withdrawal timeline, the White House is focusing on making sure the measure doesn't exceed his request.

The Senate war funding bill combines $194.1 billion in spending over 2008-2009 for war funding, foreign aid, military base construction, heating subsidies and a variety of smaller items. *Then there's $15.6 billion to give 13 weeks of unemployment checks* to people whose benefits have run out and $51.6 billion over 10 years to improve GI Bill benefits.

The immigrant farm labor provision added to the measure at a hearing last week by Sens. *Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, would allow almost 1.4 million immigrant farm workers to stay in the United States for up to five years *to ease a shortage of farm workers that has left some crops rotting in the fields.

*Sens. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., and Judd Gregg, R-N.H., followed that up with a provision to extend an expired program to allow seasonal workers to return to the country using H-2B visas.*
*Gregg, typically a fiscal conservative, voted with Democrats at last week's hearing to adopt $1 billion worth of additional energy subsidies for the poor.* That provision led top Appropriations panel Republican Thad Cochran of Mississippi - himself the driving force behind more than $1 billion for Mississippi - to warn his colleagues that they were simply guaranteeing a Bush veto.

Still, Republicans such as Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas - a member of the Senate GOP leadership team - pressed ahead with add-ons of their own. Hutchison won approval of $100 million in grants for local law enforcement to fight drug trafficking along the U.S.-Mexico border.

It's the type of situation White House budget director Jim Nussle had in mind last month when he chided senators for a "sky-is-the-limit mind-set" regarding "the desire of some in Congress to load up this troop funding bill with tens of billions in additional spending."

*Republican Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri moved to keep open three "veterans business resource centers" with $600,000 in taxpayer funds. *One of the centers is in St. Louis; the others were in Flint, Mich., and Boston.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

That expensive war that the liberals complain about is much of their making. I would like to know the percentage that has actually gone to the war, and the percentage that has gone to pet liberal welfare programs. They have two reasons to do this. One of course is to give to the lazy whom they love, and two it gives them something about Bush to complain about. 
There should be no such thing as rider bills. There is only one reason for them. They are so poor that by their own merits they could not be passed. When are the voters going to pull their heads out of their behinds and pass term limits? We need to get these parasites out of Washington.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> The immigrant farm labor provision added to the measure at a hearing last week by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, would allow almost 1.4 million immigrant farm workers to stay in the United States for up to five years to ease a shortage of farm workers that has left some crops rotting in the fields.


You know what they say, the devil is in the details. These are illegal immigrants that are being allowed to stay. The section would also allow these 1.4 million illegal immigrants to stay here but require the government to give them a identification card, aka social security card. In addition they and their dependents and by the definition of the bills wording of dependents, it means those dependents still in Mexico which they could bring here legally, would be put on a permanent status list. Add up the worker, wife, and a couple kids and that jumps to 5 or 6 million allowed into the country. No back taxes would be allowed to be collected from them and no fines for violating our laws. What are the qualifications? No felony conviction, no more than three misdemeanor convictions and a signed form from an employer they have worked (illegally) for 18 or more months in the USA. Oh, they do have to pay a $250 lawyer paper work preparation fee.

Can you say back door amnesty.


----------

