President Ready To Vote No

What does the administration <a href="http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2007/11/0329.xml">think of the Senate Farm Bill</a>?<br />n<br />n<blockquote>I am pleased to have this opportunity to outline the Administration's very significant concerns about the Senate farm bill being debated on the floor of the Senate this week. The Statement of Administration Policy, or SAP as we refer to it, will be delivered to the Congress soon. In it we outline very serious concerns about the content of the bill put forward by the Senate Agriculture Committee.<br />n<br />nThis bill increases trade-distorting support instead of lowering it, continues a defective safety net, contains little real reform, and uses tax increases and budget gimmicks to pay for priorities that deserve to be funded in an honest fashion.<br />n<br />nLet me begin with the funding issues. We believe this bill simply makes a mockery of the budget process. It contains nearly $22 billion in budget gimmicks, and nearly $15 billion in new taxes. This is simply unacceptable. $37 billion in budget gimmicks and increased taxes is simply unacceptable. This bill might appear to meet the pay-go rule on paper, but it certainly does not meet the spirit of this rule. Instead, it makes a mockery of the process.<br />n<br />nThe bill contains $7 billion in shifted commodity payments and another $3 billion in shifts in crop insurance payments. None of these shifts reduce the number of taxpayer dollars being spent. Shifting payments from one fiscal year to the next so those payments are outside the 10 years that the dollars are counted for budget purposes is simply and frankly dishonest.<br />n<br />nForcing farmers to wait for their direct payments by ending advanced direct payments after 2012 is another gimmick to push the payments out of the timeframe considered by those calculating the costs.<br />n<br />nThis bill contains nearly $12 billion in unfunded commitments. This includes $7 billion associated with the Food Stamp program and $5 billion associated with disaster assistance. This bill promises farmers that if there is drought-assistance, it is provided, unless the drought hits them in 2013 when this funding is zeroed out. They promise some of the most vulnerable people in our society additional help buying food which they can count on for five years, but those additional benefits would be taken away in 2013 under the bill as drafted because the funding is also taken away.<br />n<br />nCongress is simply not being honest about the true cost of these initiatives. It is fair to ask whether they really intend to take away the extra benefits to farmers and the less fortunate in the year 2013. I don't think anyone believes that. Funding is removed after 2012 to make the budget books appear to be in balance.<br />n<br />nIf they were to continue the funding for these programs, since the expectation is clearly that the programs will continue, the cost of the farm bill increases by $12 billion. I do not accept that this is just the way business is done in Washington. Business as usual is unacceptable if it means being dishonest with the American people about the tax dollars we are spending. Simple, honest accounting is all we are asking for.<br />n<br />nRegarding the increase in taxes, the Finance Committee bill which will be married with the farm bill raises nearly $15 billion in new taxes to pay for new programs. We don't believe other sectors should be asked to pay additional taxes for farm programs, especially when the current bill continues providing farm subsidies to millionaires living on Park Avenue.<br />n<br />nAnd $37 billion of new taxes and budget gimmicks do not constitute wise fiscal policy and serve only to erode public support for agriculture. I believe farmers deserve a strong safety net, but Congress risks losing all support for it by refusing to focus government support where there is a true need and asking other sectors to bear the cost.<br />n<br />nBeyond the budget issues, I must say that I am disappointed that the Senate did not do more to respond to the calls for reform that echoed across the country when we conducted our Farm Bill Forums.<br />n<br />nFor these reasons and others, the President's senior advisors will recommend a veto of the combined Senate Finance Committee and Senate Ag Committee Farm Bill. A formal Statement of Administration Policy will be delivered to Congress soon. When that happens, it will also be available on the website of the Office of Management and Budget.<br />n<br />nLet me be very clear. I believe this bill can be changed to reflect good farm and good fiscal policy. I urge Senators to consider these concerns as they debate this bill on the Senate floor. I welcome the opportunity to continue our dialog about the bill, and I look forward to discussing these matters with United States Senators going forward. Thank you all very much. </blockquote><br />n<br />nNow I will be the first to admit that I don't understand a lot of what is being proposed in this Farm Bill. It never makes much sense to me. All I do know is that the President is ready to vote no on this one. <br />n<br />nIt's kind of funny, the administration spends money on the war like water running through its fingers but support and help American agriculture and the rural economy of the US? Not a chance. I know, some people feel the money spent on the Farm Bill is pure pork and has nothing to do with supporting farmers. Like I said, i can never figure the damn thing out, but I will point out that some of the money that the administration was objecting to was for food stamps which is part of the Farm Bill. So there is more in the Farm bill than money to farmers.<br />n<br />n<strong>The nature of God is a circle of which the center is everywhere and the circumference is nowhere. Empedocles </strong>