Now this is an issue I'd like to see the debates focus on....
Billions go to House panel members' districts
By Ken Dilanian, USA TODAY
Members of the House who crafted a controversial $286 billion farm bill up for a vote today comprise about a tenth of the chamber, but their districts have reaped 42% of the benefits of past crop subsidies, an analysis of farm spending shows.
Constituents of the 46 House Agriculture Committee members, who have bucked complaints from Republican and Democratic critics that the bill is too extravagant, received $15 billion in commodity subsidies from 2003-2005, according to the non-partisan Environmental Working Group, which tracks farm spending.
That newly released data illustrate the extent to which entrenched interests have played a role in shaping a farm bill that the Bush administration threatened Wednesday to veto as too costly.
The five-year, $286 billion spending plan has been shaped by a small group of vested interests, critics say. The measure would funnel subsidies to farmers even when crop prices are high, and it would continue a system that concentrates benefits among the largest and richest farmers.
Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin, a leading Democratic opponent, said having the Agriculture Committee set the terms of debate is "a guarantee of the status quo," because the panel is beholden to "powerful and entrenched interests." Agribusiness spent $44.6 million on political contributions from 2005 to 2006 and $193 million on lobbying, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tallies political money.
Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said the bill heeds calls for change because it bars benefits to farmers who earn more than $1 million a year in adjusted gross income. "We are moving as far as we can," he said Tuesday.
The president had proposed a $200,000 cap — which would have cut off subsidies to 38,000 of the richest farmers. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said Peterson's plan would affect 7,000 wealthy farm owners and operators.
Bush's proposal was designed to alter a system that concentrates benefits among larger farms. The top 10% of crop subsidy recipients took in 66% of the money — $23 billion of $35 billion — from 2003-2005, according to the working group.
Wednesday, Johanns called the House bill '"a step backward." He warned it would require a tax increase and said he would urge the president to veto it if it passes as written. "We just can't be satisfied with farm policy that fails to embrace the future," he said.
Kind, from a rural Wisconsin district, is leading a group of House members in an effort to oppose Peterson's bill on the House floor.
His amendment would save $13 billion while slashing subsidies and shifting farm spending into conservation, nutrition and rural development programs.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who voted for a similar Kind amendment during the last reauthorization of the farm bill in 2002, supports the committee bill, calling it a "careful balance."
Fruit and vegetable growers, including those in her home state of California, would win new subsidies in the package.
"So many elected officials are afraid of alienating the small number of very wealthy constituents whose ox would be gored by reform," said Chuck Hassebrook, executive director of the Center for Rural Affairs in Omaha.
The ranking Republican on the committee, Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, said, "This is a forward looking modern farm bill with a significant amount of reform in it that still protects the safety net for the American farmer."
Crop subsidies from 2003-2005
From 2003 through 2005, $14.7 billion in crop subsidies went to the congressional districts of members on the House Committee on Agriculture, an analysis by the non-partisan Environmental Working Group found. That was 42.4% of the total subsidies.
OTB
Billions go to House panel members' districts
By Ken Dilanian, USA TODAY
Members of the House who crafted a controversial $286 billion farm bill up for a vote today comprise about a tenth of the chamber, but their districts have reaped 42% of the benefits of past crop subsidies, an analysis of farm spending shows.
Constituents of the 46 House Agriculture Committee members, who have bucked complaints from Republican and Democratic critics that the bill is too extravagant, received $15 billion in commodity subsidies from 2003-2005, according to the non-partisan Environmental Working Group, which tracks farm spending.
That newly released data illustrate the extent to which entrenched interests have played a role in shaping a farm bill that the Bush administration threatened Wednesday to veto as too costly.
The five-year, $286 billion spending plan has been shaped by a small group of vested interests, critics say. The measure would funnel subsidies to farmers even when crop prices are high, and it would continue a system that concentrates benefits among the largest and richest farmers.
Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin, a leading Democratic opponent, said having the Agriculture Committee set the terms of debate is "a guarantee of the status quo," because the panel is beholden to "powerful and entrenched interests." Agribusiness spent $44.6 million on political contributions from 2005 to 2006 and $193 million on lobbying, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tallies political money.
Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said the bill heeds calls for change because it bars benefits to farmers who earn more than $1 million a year in adjusted gross income. "We are moving as far as we can," he said Tuesday.
The president had proposed a $200,000 cap — which would have cut off subsidies to 38,000 of the richest farmers. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said Peterson's plan would affect 7,000 wealthy farm owners and operators.
Bush's proposal was designed to alter a system that concentrates benefits among larger farms. The top 10% of crop subsidy recipients took in 66% of the money — $23 billion of $35 billion — from 2003-2005, according to the working group.
Wednesday, Johanns called the House bill '"a step backward." He warned it would require a tax increase and said he would urge the president to veto it if it passes as written. "We just can't be satisfied with farm policy that fails to embrace the future," he said.
Kind, from a rural Wisconsin district, is leading a group of House members in an effort to oppose Peterson's bill on the House floor.
His amendment would save $13 billion while slashing subsidies and shifting farm spending into conservation, nutrition and rural development programs.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who voted for a similar Kind amendment during the last reauthorization of the farm bill in 2002, supports the committee bill, calling it a "careful balance."
Fruit and vegetable growers, including those in her home state of California, would win new subsidies in the package.
"So many elected officials are afraid of alienating the small number of very wealthy constituents whose ox would be gored by reform," said Chuck Hassebrook, executive director of the Center for Rural Affairs in Omaha.
The ranking Republican on the committee, Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, said, "This is a forward looking modern farm bill with a significant amount of reform in it that still protects the safety net for the American farmer."
Crop subsidies from 2003-2005
From 2003 through 2005, $14.7 billion in crop subsidies went to the congressional districts of members on the House Committee on Agriculture, an analysis by the non-partisan Environmental Working Group found. That was 42.4% of the total subsidies.
OTB
