Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Dems pass Farm Bill over GWB veto - making the rich richer ...

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Dems pass Farm Bill over GWB veto - making the rich richer ...

    (snip)"President Bush vetoed the $300 billion farm bill yesterday, and a bipartisan throng in the House promptly voted to override. The Senate is expected to follow shortly. Every one of these Congressional worthies purports to be an advocate of "change."

    Yet you couldn't write a piece of legislation that more thoroughly represents the Beltway status quo than this one. In every way imaginable, and even a few more, it repeats and compounds the spendthrift errors of previous farm bills.

    Since the last farm bill in 2002, the price of cotton is up 105%, soybeans 164%, corn 169% and wheat 256%. Yet when Mr. Bush proposed the genuine change of limiting farm welfare to those earning less than $200,000 a year, he was laughed out of town. The bill purports to limit subsidies to those earning a mere $750,000, but loopholes and spousal qualifications make it closer to $2.5 million. As Barack Obama likes to say, it's time Washington worked for "the middle class," which apparently includes millionaire corn and sugar farmers.

    Another purported change is the arrival of "fiscal discipline," in Nancy Pelosi's favorite phrase from the 2006 campaign. Yet it turns out this farm extravaganza may bust federal budget targets even more than we thought a week ago. That's because the new price supports – the guaranteed floor payments farmers receive for their crops – have been raised to match this year's record prices.

    The USDA reports that if crop prices fall from these highs to their norm over the next five years, farm payments will surge. For example, if corn prices return to $3.25 a bushel from today's $6, farmers would get $10 billion a year in support payments. If bean prices fall to their norm, they'd get $4 billion. Thus, if farm prices stay high, consumers face higher grocery bills and farmers get rich. If farm prices fall, taxpayers kick in the difference and farmers still get rich.

    Sugar producers also make out like Beltway bandits, receiving the difference between the world price of sugar, which is now $12 per pound, and the guaranteed price of about $21 per pound. That's a roughly 75% subsidy for already wealthy cane growers and a nice payoff for the $3 million they contribute to House candidates each year.

    All of this is a status quo that both political parties can believe in. More than a few liberal Democrats are privately embarrassed by this corporate welfare spectacle. But they've been mollified by Speaker Pelosi, who spent the last week assuring her left that the bill also includes another $10.4 billion for food stamps and nutrition programs. This entitlement expansion comes only days after the Congressional Budget Office reported that paying the bills for existing entitlements could require tax rates to climb to 80% in the future. Yes we can!

    House Republicans are equally as complicit, despite their claims of having found fiscal religion after 2006. About half of them voted to override a Republican President. GOP leaders refused to whip against the bill, and two of them – Roy Blunt of Missouri and Adam Putnam of Florida – even voted for it. These are the same House Republicans who last week unveiled their new slogan, "The Change You Deserve."

    Which brings us to Mr. Obama, who says he supported the bill though he wasn't around to vote for it. One of the Illinois Senator's major campaign themes is that he has no truck with corporate lobbyists, but the farm bill is the ultimate lobbyist triumph. Every special interest gets massaged. Just as Mr. Bush bent too far to GOP spending in his first term, Mr. Obama's farm bill support suggests he'd bow to the Pelosi Democrats on Capitol Hill.

    To his credit, John McCain opposes the bill, and this week he gave a speech attacking it. Yet he's also missed an opportunity to make his opposition part of a larger case that he represents change from both parties in Washington. He could also turn the tables on Mr. Obama's claim that he better represents middle-class taxpayers. Failing that kind of campaign, the farm bill suggests that the only real change coming to Washington is more of what's in taxpayer pockets."(snip)

  2. #2
    God/dess Paris's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,345
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked 801 Times in 419 Posts

    Default Re: Dems pass Farm Bill over GWB veto - making the rich richer ...

    ^^Who authored that op-ed?

    And the rebuttal: Farm bill a step in the right direction

    The bill should be called the Farm and Food Bill because almost 75 percent of the funding goes to anti-hunger programs. The nutrition title, which includes food stamps and school lunch programs plus other feeding programs, not only provides more than $10 billion in much needed new funding, but makes important changes to expand eligibility at a time of great need among the many hungry in our society today. Tens of thousands of Americans will be provided new resources in these times of economic insecurity.
    I'm not real sure how feeding the poorest of the poor Americans is translated into making the rich richer. Unless the author of that piece has a stake in the game and is losing out due to this new farm bill (and sees him/herself as not rich enough).

    Folks might find the current abuse of the previous farm bill interesting. Here's a video that is guaranteed to piss you off: Expose by Bill Moyers


    Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!


  3. #3
    God/dess Paris's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,345
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked 801 Times in 419 Posts

    Default Re: Dems pass Farm Bill over GWB veto - making the rich richer ...

    BTW, thanks Mel for posting that link. I find it really interesting and am glad to have seen the article. I like reading your finds here.


    Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!


  4. #4
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    whine country
    Posts
    812
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 253 Times in 139 Posts

    Default Re: Dems pass Farm Bill over GWB veto - making the rich richer ...

    The Dems did miss an opportunity to eliminate or even re-direct the $21 billion or so in crop subsidies. I think the farm bill was too overwhelming to expect that, though. California produces half of the nations food, yet only 9% of CA farmers recieve subsidies.

    The largest recipient in CA, is an old lady, a patron of the SF arts, and her relative (now deceased) was 2nd in monies recieved, he being former director of the SF opera. They live(d) in the best SF neighborhood and probably haven't stepped on dirt since they were children.

    Even doing something simple like removing the tariff on imported cane sugar would drive down the price for cane and beet sugar, and maybe remove some of the high fructose corn syrup out of our food supply.

  5. #5
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Dems pass Farm Bill over GWB veto - making the rich richer ...

    Even doing something simple like removing the tariff on imported cane sugar would drive down the price for cane and beet sugar, and maybe remove some of the high fructose corn syrup out of our food supply
    maintaining the high tariff against imported sugar (cane), exactly like maintaining the high tariff against imported ethanol, is based in US gov't policy re alternative fuels - and by 'substitution avoidance' is a prerequisite to alternative fuels based corn subsidies.

    The bill should be called the Farm and Food Bill because almost 75 percent of the funding goes to anti-hunger programs. The nutrition title, which includes food stamps and school lunch programs plus other feeding programs, not only provides more than $10 billion in much needed new funding, but makes important changes to expand eligibility at a time of great need among the many hungry in our society today
    If you check the fine print, you'll find that the 75% reference is to present year funding. In terms of future year funding, farm subsidies have now been 'permanently linked' to current world market prices for corn / wheat / rice / sugar etc - meaning that if world market prices for these crops should decline, that US subsidy payments will maintain effective price levels for US farmers (potentially costing hundreds of billions of dollars in future years) and at the same time will maintain current high food prices on grocery store shelves for US consumers. However this also guarantees high future after-tax profit levels for rich farmers ! This is funded in part by Americans having to pay a (say) 50% price premium at US supermarket shelves versus world market prices (as is currently the case for sugar), and also by increasing taxes on the middle class to fund the future farm subsidy payments to rich farmers and 'free food' giveaways to poor Americans.

    The expansion of 'free food for the poor' program spending of course removes high food prices on grocery store shelves as a worry for those poor Americans who are eligible. However, it also increases the moral hazard of poor Americans working too many hours and earning too much money to remain eligible for the 'free food' program (along with potentially losing eligibility for a cornucopia of other social welfare benefits).

    The only losers in the deal would appear to be middle class taxpayers, who will face the rising tax burden needed to fund both the 'free food for the poor' and the 'guaranteed profits for rich farmers' aspects of this program in future years.


    I would also add that thanks to creative accounting the vast majority of farm subsidy payments wind up being 'tax exempt' income ... which is of course the major reason that many rich Americans with high non-farm income sources elect to invest in farmland !!!

    (snip)"Perspectives on Using Tax Data. AGI is a common measure of household
    taxable income, and combines income from all sources. AGI measures net income, and
    Schedule F farm income contributes to AGI on a net basis, that is, after expenses. Farms
    overwhelmingly report losses for tax purposes (because of cash accounting, depreciation,
    and other practices), even though USDA farm income numbers are positive. For example,
    in 2004, two-thirds of Schedule F tax returns showed a loss, resulting in a net farm loss
    of $13 billion for all Schedule F returns. By comparison, USDA farm income data
    showed an $80 billion profit. Even for “large” farms with sales over $250,000, about
    one-third report a loss for tax purposes.9"(snip)

    from

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 05-25-2008 at 08:33 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-27-2008, 04:27 PM
  2. I would be richer if I never danced
    By 242_fair in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 108
    Last Post: 10-21-2007, 06:13 PM
  3. hedge funds ... how the 'rich' get richer
    By Melonie in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-27-2006, 09:41 AM
  4. "Making a Pass at a Robot"
    By PhaedrusZ in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-09-2005, 12:22 PM
  5. OMG- Did Ohio pass the House bill 23????
    By candy_parfeum_gurl in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-25-2005, 05:55 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •