From what I read in the Times, this is to really enforce the caps on subsidies, which will hurt the big corporate farms more than the small farmers, so it is a good deal.
No sympathy from me for the corporate farmers who gave him wads of cash.
In theory, it’s great. In practice, you know every Congressman/woman with farmers in their district/state is going to jump on this like a pit bull on a nervous toddler. Bush is going to have enormous difficulty doing anything effective here.
HE may not be able to run for re-election, but everyone else who has to vote on this can. Nothing is harder to reduce than farm subsidies; it plays about as well as kicking puppies. It would be great if he could pull it off, but they’ll fight him to the death in the Capitol.
He’re my wild-ass prediction; Adjusted for inflation, the next budget will spend more money than the last. And agricultural subsidies won’t be down much if at all. The system just is not set up that way.
I applaud it in theory, but I’ll hold my applause to see if he spends his political capital making this happen. It will mean taking on some of the most entrenched members of both parties, who will unite against him.
Of course, serious about cutting spending? Didn’t he say that in his first term as well?
I’ll take “dingbat kabuki” for $1000, Alex.
Bush puts the cuts in his budget, to give him a thin veneer of credibility as a budget hawk, and to slightly improve the numbers in his proposed budget. Farm state Republicans rise up in opposition, they get credit for ‘saving’ the farm subsidies from being cut, Bush gets forgiven because they love him on everything else, and life is good for all concerned.
The idea that Bush would cut a subsidy in a way that hurts the big boys the most is so antithetical to everything we know about GWB that I won’t believe it until it’s signed into law. The main difference between Bush and Norquist is that Bush actually wants to keep enough government around so that his corporate buddies can use it as their piggy-bank.
I couldn’t agree more. Almost nothing that authoritarian governments do is for any purpose other than political expediency, at least ultimately. But I wouldn’t limit the application of that principle to Bush. It has a long and storied history. I don’t think any party would allow its principle to alienate too many voters. I suspect that, like everything else, this was carefully planned and packaged to achieve some end that likely has nothing to do with its ostensible purpose, but is designed to have political appeal and to benefit those who have the power to make it happen.
Yes, but combined with cuts to Medicaid, education, police, enviromental agencies, etc. and increases to veteran’s drug costs, perhaps the government can afford to wage better war.
From Dr Love’s link:
A good move, but calling this a baby step would be an overstatemet.
A program that was meant to make a real impact would have a plan to reduce the payments to ZERO over some reasonable period of time. (maybe 5 years). And my guess is that every farm state Congresscritter will have some pet program that “must” be exempted. I can see even this modest proposal being whittled away in committee.
The President has to give the appearance of doing something on the budget. The one he’s submitted assumes 6.1% annual growth and doesn’t include spending on the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, nor does it include the initial costs of his proposed Social Security reform measures.
$86 Billion surplus in 2000
$412 billion deficit in 2004
This Administration has lost any credibility regarding fiscal restraint (along with any number of other issues).
Discretionary spending went up by thirteen percent that year, the largest increase in a generation.
Less than two years later the deficit reached a new record, thanks mostly to spending increases Bush signed in 2002.
That year saw huge spending increases across the board, crowned with the Prescription Drug Bill, the biggest increase in Federal spending since the 60’s.
Bush is consistent: he promises the same thing every year, and fails to deliver it.
But we’re still going to Mars, right? That part’s real, isn’t it? He’s telling the truth about that, isn’t he? I really want to go to Mars.
We’re not, but the deficit is.
Of course we are. Right after pigs fly.
It might not be as unpopular in farm states as many think.
Putting a limit on it doesn’t favor the corporate farms as does no limit.
Although not exactly helping the small farmer it doesn’t help the big guy.
To help focus the debate a bit: anything that affects the income of farmers will have a corresponding effect on diverse segments of the economy in farm states. For municipalities from small towns to larger cities, a shrinking tax base from declining farm income means fewer services. Less disposable income for farmers means declining income for small businesses and suppliers of services that now depend on a healthy farm economy.
Maybe none of this will matter to us, as long as cheap cotton shirts from Guatemala are available at Wal-Mart.
Bush effectively repealled the Freedom to Farm act in 2002, which was supposed to phase out the bulk of farm subsidies. Given this, I’ll add my voice to the chorus and say this is just lip-service to fiscal responsibility. Even if he does pass some reforms, they will be repealed as soon as commodity prices fall, just as happened in '02.
Maybe, but with cuts to Project Constellation and Prometheus, it’ll take a little longer. Our next decade in space is starting to look very dull.
Can’t we send both Bush* and* the deficit to Mars??
The most subsidized farmers are in peanuts and sugar. Both could be better grown by third world countries and at the same time lower the prices for us.
Then there is cotton:
US appeals WTO ruling on cotton