The "Bipartisan" Farm Bill

As things now stand, the Democratic party can make a credible argument that they have shown more fiscal responsibility over the past 25 years than the Republican party.

So, naturally, they are looking for ways to shoot themselves in the foot, as they've done so many times in the past. They may have found a way to do just that.

The farm bill bill being considered in Congress may be just what they need: an extreme (and expensive) example of spending tax dollars to satisfy special interests. At a cost of $286 billion over 5 years, the most recent version is not a small expense.

President Bush has threatened to veto any bill that does not include a limit on eligibility to persons with an income of $200,000 or less, versus the current limit of $2.5 million. If Congress is foolish enough to send such a bill to the President, they will deserve exactly what they will get.

Contrary to what Sen. Tom Harken describes as a "hard line," limiting these subsidies at a time when our budget deficit is spinning out of control is just common sense. How can one explain why a part of each tax dollar paid by someone making $40,000 a year actually goes into the pocket of someone making $2.5 million a year? And how does one explain why such a subsidy should be added to the massive debt we will pass along to our grandchildren?

Sen. Harkin hails the "bipartisan spirit" behind the final version of the bill, and this may be the problem. The bill easily cleared the Senate with support from both parties, and is on it's way to the House. The easy answer will always be to spend more and more to satisfy special interests, even though we know they will never be satisfied.

It's been known for some time that these subsidies go to the largest farms who need subsidies the least. Since 1990 payments to large farms have nearly tripled, while payments to small farmers has stayed constant. This has accelerated the trend toward large farms buying out small farms, so it's doing nothing to preserve the traditional family farm, and hasn't for many years.

It's just not what the country needs. Maybe the threat of Bush's veto this will give Sen. Grassley (who, along with Sen. Harkin has supported lower caps for farm subsidy payments) what he needs to talk some sense into other Congressional leaders.

But I'm sure President Bush is hoping Sen. Grassley stays silent, so Congress can give him at least some basis for claiming he's been trying to control wasteful spending all along...