Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28
  1. #1
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,682

    Farm Bill Passes House [Bush Veto 5/21]

    And we all wring our hands over Oil Company subsidies.[Because oil companies are the great satan...so were told]

    Begin reading here:

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...E1ZGQzMmUyOTA=


    And forget the Sean Hannity crap. Who cares.


    Among the other gems? I really like this one.


    WASHINGTON — Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., netted tax breaks for the thoroughbred horse racing industry in the farm bill worth $126 million over the next 10 years, a provision that helped guarantee his support for the hotly debated bill.
    The provision ensures that all racehorses are depreciated over three years for tax purposes, regardless of when the horses start training. The current tax code doesn't reflect the entire length of a horse's racing life, according to a National Thoroughbred Racing Association analysis of Jockey Club racing data.
    "While many Americans identify the horse industry as one of Kentucky's signature industries, its economic impact extends well beyond the borders of the commonwealth," McConnell said.








  2. #2
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,682

    Re: Farm Bill Passes House

    And I picked on a Republican first because they are all dirty. And I wont be seen
    as simply bashing Democrats.

    I should roll the theme song from It Takes A Thief

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll315.xml
    Last edited by jimzinsocal; 05-14-2008 at 07:20 PM.

  3. #3
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,422

    Re: Farm Bill Passes House

    Again, simple math... we each cough up an average of a hundred bucks for this... per person. House of three? Three hundred bucks. We just gave up three nice dinners out to these arses... and nobody even sends a thank you note...

    We'd really rather decide how our money gets spent on our own. The people in Washington just can't be trusted with our loot.

  4. #4
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,682

    Re: Farm Bill Passes House

    Hang on. Mark Levin just had a great quote

    And Mark Levin Starts His Show with "Positive Advice" [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

    My advice to conservatives: Cut your ties from the Republican party. Cut your ties to the McCain campaign. Run on principle.. it's all you have... If you follow these other Republicans, you will go down.

  5. #5
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,682

    Re: Farm Bill Passes House

    Bah. Im disgusted with the entire bunch.

  6. #6
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,682

  7. #7
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    71
    Posts
    21,489

    Re: Farm Bill Passes House

    Quote Originally Posted by jimzinsocal View Post
    Bah. Im disgusted with the entire bunch.
    The b**tards will make you crazy.

    I like Mark Levin’s advice, screw ‘em all…

  8. #8
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,262

    Re: Farm Bill Passes House

    Quote Originally Posted by jimzinsocal View Post
    Hang on. Mark Levin just had a great quote

    And Mark Levin Starts His Show with "Positive Advice" [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

    My advice to conservatives: Cut your ties from the Republican party. Cut your ties to the McCain campaign. Run on principle.. it's all you have... If you follow these other Republicans, you will go down.
    I'm starting to feel more like this every day....
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  9. #9
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: Farm Bill Passes House

    Politicians buying votes again.
    Brian

  10. #10
    Joined
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    5,171

    Re: Farm Bill Passes House

    they're all a bunch a •••• sucking ass lickers.
    Max Plank: "A new scientific truth does not
    triumph by convincing its opponents and making them
    see the light,
    but rather because its opponents eventually die"
    Arthur Shopenhauer: "Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized.
    First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is opposed. Third, it is regarded as self evident."
    Martin Niemöller:
    "When the Nazis came for the communists,
    I remained silent;I was not a communist.
    When they locked up the social democrats,I remained silent;
    I was not a social democrat.When they came for the trade unionists,I did not speak out;
    I was not a trade unionist.When they came for the Jews,
    I remained silent;I wasn't a Jew.When they came for me,
    there was no one left to speak out."

  11. #11
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,682

    Re: Farm Bill Passes House

    Of all of the current Congress’s attempts to manage the U.S. economy — housing bailouts, “stimulus” packages, an energy bill that bans light bulbs — the farm bill is probably the most exasperating. This year’s bill, should it ever pass, will further prop up prices for sugar, and it will encourage farmers to plant crops for which there would otherwise be no demand. And farm bills receive broad bipartisan support — even as they pay non-farmers for living on former farmland.

    But this year’s farm bill contains a special-interest provision you’ve probably never heard of — the Qualified Forestry Bonds program. This provides federally funded tax-credit bonds for forest purchases that meet the following four criteria:

    The forest must be adjacent to U.S. Forest Service Land;

    Half of the parcel must be turned over to the U.S. Forest Service;

    It must include at least 40,000 total acres; and

    It must be subject to a “native fish habitat conservation plan approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.”

    Your initial reaction might be, “What’s so bad about that?” The government does far more damaging things than forest-land preservation, after all. But this farm-bill provision offers a lesson on how things are sometimes done in Washington. Only one parcel of land in the entire United States meets the criteria set for the Qualified Forestry Bonds program. You see, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has approved exactly one “Native Fish Habitat Conservation Plan,” covering a 1.6-million-acre parcel that reaches from western Montana into eastern Washington State. And that parcel is owned by the Plum Creek Timber Company, the single largest private landowner in the United States.

    Plum Creek Timber (PCL), with a market cap of $7 billion, began its corporate life in 1987 as Burlington Resources, spinning off of Burlington Northern to manage the railroad giant’s timber and mineral resources — some of which date back to the original railroad land grants of the Lincoln administration. In 1999, Plum Creek became a Real Estate Investment Trust, and began unloading its land holdings for high-end residential and recreational use. Today, with the real-estate and timber markets flat, Plum Creek has been looking to sell larger tracts of timberland to large institutional investors. The farm bill’s Qualified Forestry Bonds provision could provide up to $500 million to help sweeten such deals.

    Plum Creek spent some $220,000 lobbying Congress in the first quarter of this year. Its PAC has spread $400,000 in campaign contributions between the parties in the last decade. PCL Employees have given $16,600 this cycle to Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance committee and the author of the bond provision. Baucus, whose staff did not answer inquiries, was enthusiastic enough about the forestry bonds that he put them into the Farm Bill (H.R. 2419), though they have nothing to do with agriculture. The bonds also didn’t have anything to do with energy when Baucus put them in last year’s energy bill.



    In response to this blatant rent-seeking, Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.), is proposing a non-binding motion to remove the forestry bond provision from the farm bill. But Cantor tells National Review Online that he expects his motion to fail. Since half of the land sold under the provision will go to the federal government — preserving it as pristine wilderness and preventing its eventual development — pols courting the environmental vote are unlikely to stand against it. However green it may seem, this provision is little more than a massive corporate subsidy for a single company.

    Cantor called the forestry bond program “a Bridge to Nowhere in the Farm Bill,” referring to the infamous Alaska bridge that had been inserted into the 2005 transportation bill. “If it’s a legitimate program to preserve lands adjacent to federal forests, fine,” says Cantor. “But to engage in backroom deals designed to benefit one landowner? That’s exactly why people distrust Congress and feel that Washington is broken.”

    The tax-credit bonds that would be made available for the sale of Plum Creek lands are not the same as bonds that are merely “tax-exempt.” Tax-credit bonds, partly frowned upon by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office as an inefficient funding vehicle, pay out 70 percent of their interest in the form of federal income tax credits that can be rolled from one year to another. In other words, the federal government pays 70 percent of the interest to the bondholders. If the government did this for your 6-percent, 30-year mortgage, your monthly payment would drop by about 40 percent, and you would be able to buy a more expensive, bigger home. Likewise, the forestry bonds could facilitate the sale of more of Plum Creek’s land at a higher price.

    This is why Ways and Means ranking member Jim McCrery (R., La.), in floor debate, rejected the argument that this is not an earmark because the benefit cannot be said to go to the bondholders. “They’re not going to be the ones getting $500 million for a piece of property,” he tells NRO. “It is one landowner.”

    The Joint Economic Committee estimates that the Qualified Forestry Bonds provision could cost the government $257 million over the course of ten years — a plum deal for Plum Creek. Now it’s possible that more “fish habitats” will be created, so that more landholders might benefit from this taxpayer largesse. (They’d better hurry: the fine print states that they must be established within two years to get a bond issue.) But if the farm bill passes as is, then there certainly will be plenty of money available to buy Plum Creek’s land, at least.


    ^^that was written before the Bill passed the House.


  12. #12
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: Farm Bill Passes House

    oink, oink
    Brian

  13. #13
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,682

    Re: Farm Bill Passes House

    TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
    I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 2419, the "Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008."
    For a year and a half, I have consistently asked that the Congress pass a good farm bill that I can sign. Regrettably, the Congress has failed to do so. At a time of high food prices and record farm income, this bill lacks program reform and fiscal discipline. It continues subsidies for the wealthy and increases farm bill spending by more than $20 billion, while using budget gimmicks to hide much of the increase. It is inconsistent with our objectives in international tradenegotiations, which include securing greater market access for American farmers and ranchers. It would needlessly expand the size and scope of government. Americans sent us to Washington to achieve results and be good stewards of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This bill violates that fundamental commitment.
    In January 2007, my Administration put forward a fiscally responsible farm bill proposal that would improve the safety net for farmers and move current programs toward more market-oriented policies. The bill before me today fails to achieve these important goals.
    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.
    Now is also not the time to create a new uncapped revenue guarantee that could cost billions of dollars more than
    advertised. This is on top of a farm bill that is anticipated to cost more than $600 billion over 10 years. In addition, this bill would force many businesses to prepay their taxes in order to finance the additional spending.
    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.
    The bill also contains a wide range of other objectionable provisions, including one that restricts our ability to redirect food aid dollars for emergency use at a time of great need globally. The bill does not include the requested authorityto buy food in the developing world to save lives. Additionally, provisions in the bill raise serious constitutional concerns. For all the reasons outlined above, I must veto H.R. 2419, and I urge the Congress to extend current law for a year or more.
    I veto this bill fully aware that it is rare for a stand-alone farm bill not to receive the President's signature, but my action today is not without precedent. In 1956, President Eisenhower stood firmly on principle, citing high crop subsidies and too much government control of farm programs among the reasons for his veto. President Eisenhower wrote in his veto message, "Bad as some provisions of this bill are, I would have signed it if in total it could be interpreted as sound and good for farmers and the nation." For similar reasons, I am vetoing the bill before me today.
    GEORGE W. BUSH
    THE WHITE HOUSE,

  14. #14
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: Farm Bill Passes House

    finally, some cajones.
    Brian

  15. #15
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: Farm Bill Passes House [Bush Veto 5/21]

    What no appeasment?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •