Congress has sent to Bush a new farm bill. Let's see, the NY Times editors think it is "disgraceful"; the LA Times editors describe it as "pork, not policy". The LA Times closes with this:
There are a few senators who recognize this bill as the bloated monstrosity it is. The last hope is that there are enough of them to uphold Bush's veto.
"A few Senators"? Are any of those Senators named John McCain? Yes, indeed. Are any of them named Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? Uhh, no. Neither papers' editorial noted that fact, but this is from Reuters:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate for president, on Monday said he agreed with President George W. Bush's decision to the $289 billion farm bill because it did not cut subsidies to wealthy farmers enough.
"I would veto that bill," McCain said, calling the farm bill an unwarranted handout to corporate farmers and an obstacle to freer agricultural trade worldwide.
...
None of the three senators running for president -- McCain and Democrats Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois -- voted on the bill. Clinton and Obama applauded Senate passage of the bill and said Bush should sign it.
USA Today got more Obamafuscation from the presumptive Democratic nominee:
Although neither senator showed up for Thursday's vote, McCain went to Iowa, the heart of farm country, this month to announce his opposition to the bill. On Thursday, he called it "a bloated piece of legislation that will do more harm than good for most farmers and consumers."
Obama came out in favor of the farm bill Thursday after failing to vote on a previous version when it passed in November.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama's Democratic opponent, has supported the farm bill without reservation.
"I applaud the Senate's passage today of the farm bill, which will provide America's hard-working farmers and ranchers with more support and more predictability," Obama said in a statement.
"This bill is far from perfect," he added, noting that he supported stricter limits on payments to wealthy farmers. "But with so much at stake, we cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good."
That was a departure from Obama's comments in Iowa in December, when he said of the farm bill, "Once again the lobbyists stepped in to make sure that big agribusinesses got the multimillion-dollar giveaways that they've come to count on."
Asked to reconcile those sentiments, Obama's spokesman, Tommy Vietor, said the candidate was referring to the failure to cap subsidy payments.
Obama, hailing from the farm state of Illinois, has said he supports aid to family farms, not wealthy agribusinesses. As the bill was debated, he backed a proposal that would have capped farm payments at $250,000 per year.
That provision didn't make it. Instead, the bill says individual farmers who get direct payments cannot earn more than $750,000 and have non-farm income of more than $500,000. For married couples, those figures double.
Hope and change. I just hope his supporters aren't expecting any real change.
ALL THE NEWS THAT FITS THE NARRATIVE: LOL - the Times has a long "news analysis" probing the politics behind the farm bill but can't bring themselves to mention McCain, Obama, or Clinton. Gosh, why might that be? They do, however, find space to quote Congressman Ron Kind, (D, WI), clearly a guy to whom New Yorkers routinely turn for insight:
“You need a few members of Congress here to stand up today and say the emperor has no clothes,” Representative Ron Kind, Democrat of Wisconsin, said in last week’s debate. “It’s more status quo.”
Mr. Kind added: “The president is right. We ought not be giving taxpayer subsidies to wealthy individuals at a time of record-high commodity prices in the marketplace.”
The Times editors must laugh harder doing their jobs than the producers at The Daily Show.
TO BE FAIR: The Times website includes AP and Reuters stories, but I can't find a news story with a Times report byline mentioning the positions of McCain, Obama and Clinton on this farm bill. However, both Gail Collins and David Brooks mentioned it in their columns. Ladies first:
While McCain was unveiling his great expectations in Ohio, back in Washington Congress was voting by overwhelming majorities to pass an enormous, wasteful, ridiculous farm bill that provides massive subsidies to wealthy people who grow wheat, corn, soybeans, rice and cotton — along, of course, with Senator Mitch McConnell’s famous tax break for breeders of thoroughbred horses. McCain said he’d veto the bill if he were president, a threat that loses some of its wow quotient when the bill in question just passed both chambers by veto-proof majorities. (Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama dived into the tank and supported the package.)
And David Brooks:
The question amid this supposed change election is: Who is going to end this sort of thing?
Barack Obama talks about taking on the special interests. This farm bill would have been a perfect opportunity to do so. But Obama supported the bill, just as he supported the 2005 energy bill that was a Christmas tree for the oil and gas industries.
Obama’s vote may help him win Iowa, but it will lead to higher global food prices and more hunger in Africa. Moreover, it raises questions about how exactly he expects to bring about the change that he promises.
If elected, Obama’s main opposition will not come from Republicans. It will come from Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill. Already, the Democratic machine is reborn. Lobbyists are now giving 60 percent of their dollars to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The pharmaceutical industry, the defense industry and the financial sector all give more money to Democrats than Republicans. If Obama is actually going to bring about change, he’s going to have to ruffle these sorts of alliances. If he can’t do it in an easy case like the farm bill, will he ever?
John McCain opposed the farm bill. In an impassioned speech on Monday, he declared: “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.”
McCain has been in Congress for decades, but he has remained a national rather than a parochial politician. The main axis in his mind is not between Republican and Democrat. It’s between narrow interest and patriotic service. And so it is characteristic that he would oppose a bill that benefits the particular at the expense of the general.
Go, Brooksie.
Obama prolly thinks it will bring down the price of arugula that all those Iowa farmers raise
Posted by: Bill in AZ | May 20, 2008 at 03:52 PM
He's present and thinking about it though,TM. Of that I'm sure. Wouldn't want to jump into anything.
Posted by: clarice | May 20, 2008 at 03:56 PM
This just kept coming to mind ..
Posted by: Neo | May 20, 2008 at 04:31 PM
But Congress never thinks what it does is futile and stupid.
Posted by: michaelt | May 20, 2008 at 04:45 PM
When Obama talks about taking on special interests, he means he will talk with them- without preconditions but with preparation- and recognize their legitimate goals and their legitimate grievances.
Posted by: MayBee | May 20, 2008 at 05:12 PM
What a g-damn fraud the MSM is. What a g-damn fraud the Democrats are, especially "Mr. Change" Obama.
Bravo, Senator McCain.
Posted by: TMF | May 20, 2008 at 05:33 PM
Most of the money in this farm bill goes for nutrition and conservation.
It's pretty easy to attack the wealthy farmers who get subsidies from the government but that's only something like fourteen per cent of the total price of the bill.
(PoFarmer help me out here)
Our government has long had a "cheap food" policy but in today's environment--weak dollar and high oil prices--that policy is no longer viable.
Posted by: glasater | May 20, 2008 at 05:48 PM
Hey TM gets some props over at The Corner from Spruiell:
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Re: Obama for 'Change' [Stephen Spruiell]
Andrew, here's something that everyone (including me, until I saw Tom Maguire's post on the subject) has missed so far about Obama's support for the Farm Bill:
.......
Posted by: Enlightened | May 20, 2008 at 05:50 PM
It's pretty easy to attack the wealthy farmers who get subsidies from the government but that's only something like fourteen per cent of the total price of the bill.
The median household income for the United States is just over $48,000. 800,000 such households would number 2 million people, enough to make the 5th largest city in the country.
If you confiscated every penny earned by every person in this city for the entire year, you would have $38.6 billion.
Fourteen percent of the farm bill comes to $40.5 billion.
Posted by: bgates | May 20, 2008 at 06:18 PM
This is why I've supported McCain.
If only he showed this leadership on immigration (sigh).
Posted by: SteveMG | May 20, 2008 at 06:34 PM
Shh ... Indeed. Luckily Greg Mankiw is watching ...
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/05/mccain-vs-obama-farm-bill.html
Posted by: Robert Bell | May 20, 2008 at 07:00 PM
Enlightened:
Gotchyer link right here: Spruiell
Posted by: JM Hanes | May 20, 2008 at 07:05 PM
David Brooks: The main axis in his mind is not between Republican and Democrat. It’s between narrow interest and patriotic service.
McCain has always put Country ahead of Party. (there ought to be a law to that effect)
I think this is McCain's Ace in the Hole. He should ask all voters to put Country ahead of Party for this election, if they want to put an end to the vicious, vitriolic, hyper-partisanship that has dominated Washington for 2 decades.
Posted by: MikeS | May 20, 2008 at 07:13 PM
While we wait for the Oregon results, it seems that the Messiah had help in attracting 75K to his rally -- a popular indy rock band named "The Decemberists." They open their shows with the Soviet National Anthem. Anyhoo, they performed for 45 minutes preceding BO.
Posted by: centralcal | May 20, 2008 at 07:42 PM
I like it Mike. I really hope McCain runs on Patriotism. I think that would appeal to a lot of the democrats who say they will not vote for Obama.
Posted by: Jane | May 20, 2008 at 08:13 PM
" What a g-damn fraud the Democrats are"
O/T of the Farm Bill. From Gateway Pundit Article
" He Did It Again! Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) Attacks Troops
Antiwar Liberal Democrat Attacks Troops Visiting Capital Hill"
"Please provide for me the name, rank, branch, and duties of each of these officers, as well as the number of additional staff and drivers that were used to facilitate their attendance yesterday. I would like this information by Monday, May 19th."
Words fail me for the hatred I see from the leftists in Congress against our military.
Posted by: Pagar | May 20, 2008 at 08:15 PM
The bill is to subsidizes foreign farmers. It's based on 1950s(Republican) legislation like Water for Peace, Food for Peace, Peace Corps, etc. Those countries can subsidize farmers themselves.
The farm bill has to pass because that is what soft power and civil society wanted. Since their last failure Rice has doubled(along with the agencies budgets lobbying) and there are all these emergencies that are not long term sustainable emergencies(five year emergency budgets and five year sustainable agency budgets); not like AIDs, etc.
UN gets a bunch of cash short term food and the agencies and orgs get their five year doubled budgets based on the 'five year emergency sustainable budgets' for AIDs ,etc. that are really based on the employment term.
Dems. Dems want an end to five year terms and 20 year budgets that guarantee employment. Term limits? Kennedy and Castro are history.
Posted by: Huep | May 20, 2008 at 08:23 PM
If only he showed this leadership on immigration (sigh).
He does.
And, um, TM, the NYT editorial was from the 16th, and the LAT's, from the 15th. The Reuters story decribes events--McBush's brave stand against government payments to millionaires--from the 19th. So if McCain failed to attend the vote for the farm bill, there was no reason for the papers to distinguish his non-vote, back on the 15th & 16th, from the skipped votes of Obama & Clinton.
Other than that, another great demonstration that if the media doesn't report storylines exactly the way you want them to, they're biased, and an arm of the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Beloved Weaver | May 20, 2008 at 08:39 PM
May 2, 2008:
Calling farm subsidies "unnecessary," Sen. John McCain rejected the recently announced farm bill compromise in a Des Moines appearance Thursday.
"I do not support it. I would veto it," the presumptive Republican nominee for president said.
That's from the 4th hit on Google for the ingenious combination of words, "mccain farm bill". The NYT, LAT, and their moronic sycophants like Beloved Weaver are all incapable of that level of research, yet they think themselves suited to rule the country.
Posted by: bgates | May 20, 2008 at 08:57 PM
there was no reason for the papers to distinguish his non-vote, back on the 15th & 16th, from the skipped votes of Obama & Clinton.
McCain made clear his opposition to the bill before the 15th and 16th.
In fact, he has a rather lengthy history of opposing such legislative largess especially in these farm bills.
His opposition shouldn't have come as a surprise to those papers.
Try again.
Posted by: SteveMG | May 20, 2008 at 10:01 PM
bgates:
Research has nothing to do with it. The candidates' positions on the farm bill are well known, and have been widely reported. It's been a campaign issue for Hillary (go ahead, "Hillary farm bill," knock yourself out).
However, TM didn't choose to critique these editorials not written to his personal specifications on the basis of the older material. He chose instead a story from yesterday, when McBush yet again stood bravely, and most eloquently this time, against wealthy farmers. (One guy's got lobbyists seeping from his pores; and the other, vetoed not one pork-laden bill during his first seven years in office.) The relevance of that story, and those actions by Maverick, yesterday, to editorials written days before, is nil.
So, yeah, the two Times failed to mention the candidates in their editorials on how shitty the farm bill is, but it's not like that information hasn't been reported, and for a couple of weeks now. My experience is that that's usually the situation when you MSM Troofers get involved.
Posted by: Beloved Weaver | May 20, 2008 at 10:02 PM
the two Times failed to mention the candidates in their editorials on how shitty the farm bill is,
The Times does a lengthy analysis on a major farm bill passed during a Presidential election and forgets to mention the positions of the candidates on the legislation?
But the defense is that readers can find that information elsewhere?
All the news that you can somewhere else at some time.
Posted by: SteveMG | May 20, 2008 at 10:07 PM
. . . they're biased, and an arm of the Democratic Party.
A workable hypothesis. Sure ain't gonna disprove it with this one.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | May 20, 2008 at 10:21 PM
If only he showed this leadership on immigration (sigh).
He does.
By following Bush's approach?
You said he was McBush.
Or does he show leadership?
One of us is confused.
Posted by: SteveMG | May 20, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Glasater
I think you're about right on the percentage. The thing is, the subsidies that DO go to farmers go to a select group. Bush wanted to eliminate payments to individuals with incomes over 250,000, I belive that this bill is either 400,000 or 600,000, so your heart surgeon who owns that great Iowa farmland can still get payments. In additions, the corn and ethanol subsidies are now putting livestock farmers out of business. Livestock is not subsidised or production insured like row crops can be. There is going to be a sea change in the livestock industry, and soon, if things don't change. Do you have any idea what fertilizer prices have done in the last year? Do you folks realize how much fuel it takes to put a crop in or put up hay? I've already spend between 1/4 and 1/3 of my entire fuel budget for the year, and we've only been putting in the crop for less than a week. Still got all summer to go. The whole thing at this point is a cluster f##k in my mind. But, heh, it's got bi-partisan support.
Posted by: Pofarmer | May 20, 2008 at 10:29 PM
if McCain failed to attend the vote for the farm bill, there was no reason for the papers to distinguish his non-vote, back on the 15th & 16th, from the skipped votes of Obama & Clinton.
Yes there was a reason: McCain's position was different from Obama and Clinton.
There was also a reason for them not to: McCain's position is much more admirable, and the Times wants a Democrat to beat him.
Or maybe you're right, and the Times, which last used the phrase "Abu Ghraib" on its editorial page a month ago, doesn't like to dwell on the past.
Posted by: bgates | May 20, 2008 at 10:36 PM
The whole thing at this point is a cluster f##k in my mind. But, heh, it's got bi-partisan support.
You typed 'but' where you meant 'therefore'.
There is going to be a sea change in the livestock industry, and soon, if things don't change.
Given the environment she's created, the amount of investment capital she can access, and her history of success in this market, Hillary could become a trillionaire through pork belly futures.
Posted by: bgates | May 20, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Sea change indeed... The most significant effect of the quadrupling of diesel fuel prices is that foreign demand for grain is disappearing, because it's so much cheaper to consume grain that is grown locally. (That, of course, is true no matter where you are and what "local" and "foreign" mean to your location.) Google the term "comparative advantage" and think about how the price of diesel fuel eliminates the wealth creation inherent in specialization and trade.
The obvious (incremental) effect is that as demand in the incredibly high-efficiency grain producing locations (Illinois and Iowa) collapses with the elimination of far-away export markets, the farmers will convert some land to pasture and go into the livestock business so that they don't have to truck the livestock feed long distances. So think about that, Pofarmer -- you'll have the farmers here in Illinois, who get 230 bushels/acre of corn, who have suddenly a bunch of fallow land that they can graze cattle on, and that corn in the next field that they don't have to truck in hundreds of miles to finish the cattle. Looks to me like they're going to be putting you out of business. Realize that ethanol subsidy (which is the only thing keeping those fields planted with corn and keeping those corn farmers out of the livestock business) is a subsidy for you.
Well, there has to be. With diesel fuel at $4.50/gallon, even "free" grain (free at the grain farmer's field) costs serious bucks to transport to where the livestock is.Posted by: cathyf | May 21, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Cathy
You're missing the effect of the devaluation of the $ and high oil prices. I've got to plant corn, but I'll try to expound later tonight, probably much later.
Posted by: Pofarmer | May 21, 2008 at 12:01 PM
What I'm saying is that as the cost of fuel increases the cost of moving food long distances, the localized vertical integration increases:
-- Livestock producers in Brazil and Argentina buy locally to save on fuel costs, so those grain farmers expand and take over for grain farmers in Iowa and Illinois;
-- Grain farmers in Iowa & Illinois convert some land from row crops to livestock, so they can take the crops from the remaining fields in row crops and feed it to the livestock with minimal transportation costs. (Exactly why you plant crops to feed your own livestock.)
-- Livestock farmers in places where the soil is less fertile go out of business.
The net effect is that marginal land far away from the US gets put into production, while marginal land in the US get taken out of production, and the total amount of import/export drops.
It's all a game of musical chairs, as production up and down the line is done closer to where consumption is in order to save on diesel fuel.
Posted by: cathyf | May 21, 2008 at 01:18 PM
Is the next morning later?? LOL. I didn't feel like posting at 11:00 last night when I crawled out of the tractor.
Livestock producers everywhere are under pressure from high fertlizer and crop prices. Let's just look at the cattle industry. The cattle industry is land intensive, especially cow-calf. It takes between 2-4 acres per pair in the humid regions to 100 acres or more in the west. A 600 lb calf is currently worth about $650.
High crop prices are driving land costs. All but the most threatened land is being driven into row crop production.
High crop prices are driving fertilizer prices. Fertilizer prices have more than TRIPLED since last spring. It's much easier to absorb this on the row crop side than the cattle side at this time. Row crop prices have been the driver while cattle prices are stagnant or slightly retreating. Now, most of this is driven by an oversupply of pork and chicken driven by the large integrators that are now whining about the high grain prices, but I digress. A fertilizer program that would have been $16 per acre 5 years ago, and $40 per acre last year, is over $100 an acre right now. Take that out to 4 acres per pair and you can see where the cost squeeze for the cow calf guy is coming in. The feeders are squeezed by high grain prices so somebody is gonna take it in the shorts. If Fat prices don't come up accordingly, or something drops drastically, you're going to see a huge decrease in the domestic cow herd.
Livestock farmers in places where the soil is less fertile are actually under LESS pressure because the land will probably stay used for livestock. You're not going to see cows grazing Illinios cropland anytime soon. Illinios has a compettive advantage with Corn production, and they know how to use it. You might see a slight increase in cattle feeding in Illinios, but most of the slaughter plants have moved west, and freight is an issue.
Now, with the way the $ has fallen recently, folks in Europe and Asia can buy my grain for about what I'd have to pay for it or receive. Basically, the decline in the $ is paying the freight. For the first time, I'm competing directly with feeders in other parts of the world on an almost one to one basis. The folks buying U.S. grain overseas have the same in it that U.S. feeders do.
Now, as to transportation costs for processed food. Freight has been running around $2.50 a mile for van loads. Let's say that doubles to $5.00 a mile. Let's say that you're moving 45,000 lbs of lettuce 1000 miles. So, your freight bill just wen t from $.055 per/lb to $.111 per/lb. It's probably not a large enough jump to justify switching production areas. High freight costs are much more of an impediment on relatively low value products like corn and hay where the value of the freight may actually be approaching the value of the product.
Now, I've written a book. I should probably be starting my own blog rather than wasting TM's Bandwidth.
Posted by: Pofarmer | May 22, 2008 at 08:57 AM
Furrow time sometimes furrows the brow.
==========================
Posted by: kim | May 22, 2008 at 09:07 AM
Furrow time sometimes furrows the brow.
Posted by: battery | December 30, 2008 at 02:59 AM
Welcome to our game world, my friend asks me to buy runescape .
Posted by: sophy | January 06, 2009 at 11:18 PM