Bush vetoes farm bill, Congress may override

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush vetoed the $289 billion U.S. farm bill on Wednesday despite the likelihood of a congressional override, saying the bill subsidizes multimillionaire farmers while Americans face higher grocery prices.

The bill would expand nutrition programs by $10.3 billion over 10 years, mostly to help poor Americans buy food. It encourages land stewardship and biofuels development.

Leaders of the House of Representatives and Senate Agriculture committees say they have the votes to override the veto, the 10th issued by Bush, yet this week. More than half of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the farm bill last week.

A two-thirds majority of each chamber is needed in a vote to override a veto. A House vote was possible later on Wednesday, said staff workers. The House passed the farm bill by a 3-to-1 margin and the Senate by 4 to 1.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080521/pl_nm/bush_farmbill_dc;_ylt=AsOf6off_Y6cN_kGVE4lGf8a.3QA

an AH again!

I think the real reason was the expanded nutrition programs, I think Bush should have vetoed it. To much money is going to big corporations that have bought up farmland all over the country, and that's the problem I have with it. Congress needs to get their heads out of their ass and instead of paying subsidies "NOT" to grow crops, they need to encourage more crops being planted. By paying millions to big farm corporations not to grow crops, the price goes way up, so they not only get paid for not growing, but paid twice as much for what they do grow! It's plain stupid!

But I agree with you; I doubt that's why he vetoed it.

before he does more damage to the world.

TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:



snip
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. When commodity prices are at record highs, it is irresponsible to increase government subsidy rates for 15 crops, subsidize additional crops, and provide payments that further distort markets. Instead of better targeting farm programs, this bill eliminates the existing payment limit on marketing loan subsidies.


snip

This legislation is also filled with earmarks and other ill considered provisions. Most notably, H.R. 2419 provides: $175 million to address water issues for desert lakes; $250 million for a 400,000-acre land purchase from a private owner; funding and authority for the noncompetitive sale of National Forest land to a ski resort; and $382 million earmarked for a specific watershed. These earmarks, and the expansion of Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements, have no place in the farm bill. Rural and urban Americans alike are frustrated with excessive government spending and the funneling of taxpayer funds for pet projects. This bill will only add to that frustration.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080521-4.html

I see the real reason Shrub vetoed the bill and you can take this to the bank: expansion of Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements. Bush would have signed the bill without that in there.

I see no reason Congress can debate the reinstatement of specific line items but hey, hide the pork is the rule of thumb.

I remember Bill C pleading his case for a line item veto in this same situation;

It was the first veto of farm legislation since President Clinton vetoed a budget-cutting bill that included the "Freedom to Farm" plan.

"Freedom to Farm," which ended most federal controls over agriculture, was enacted on its own in 1996.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080521/pl_nm/bush_farmbill_dc