Life in the slow lane
Just when you think you understand something about Washington, things change and prove you know nothing. Unless, of course, you work there, either as a member of Congress or maybe as a K Street lobbyist.
After seven years of steady opposition to administration policy, I can actually support Bush’s veto of the Farm Bill.
He first threatened the veto a year ago on grounds the legislation gave too much in subsidies to farmers already enjoying record high prices and high yields. Good point.
After 11 months of jiggering, adding pork for nearly every member’s district, the House and Senate assured passage by a veto-proof majority.
Never mind that billions of taxpayer dollars would still go to prosperous corporate farms and behemoth growers of corn, soybeans, rice and cotton. Never mind that lawmakers ignored a White House request that 25 percent of food aid funds be used to purchase supplies from local growers. That’s a sensible suggestion, heartily supported by Oxfam and other groups working for hunger relief worldwide. For years, the farm lobby insisted all food aid come from U.S. growers, which takes way too long to get to people in need and wastes precious fuel in the bargain.
So after a year of deliberation, a bipartisan majority in both houses tosses the good ideas and retains the pork. The bill goes to Bush; he vetoes it. The House and Senate override his veto. Democrats are gleeful, farm state Republicans facing re-election head home to proudly present their constituents with the goodies.
Then comes the glitch. And red faces on Democrats who apparently failed to give the final product a careful look before sending it to Bush. A 34-page section dealing with international food aid and trade was omitted in what was called a printing error.
After an unprintable remark by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who admitted her response was “uncustomarily crude,” she took responsibility for the fiasco. The House again passed the bill 306-110; Senators say they’ll deal with it when they return next week.
By then, some overworked clerk in the House printing office may have gone missing.
Meanwhile, jubilant farm state legislators have once again brought home the bacon. And I am once again ambivalent about a law that will remain in effect for five years no matter which party takes the reins of government next January.
In Montana, where agriculture is the engine that drives the state’s economy (California has more economic diversity), Sen. Max Baucus calls the bill a labor of love. To his credit, before negotiating the bill in the Agriculture Committee, Baucus traveled thousands of miles across the state, trading ideas in town hall meetings, in coffee shops and with his colleague Sen. Jon Tester, an organic farmer. He says he got “an earful on ag policy.”
In Montana, where neither cotton nor corn is king, Baucus says he got a boost in payments for wheat and barley farmers and helped further COOL, country of origin labeling for meat, among other products (passed in 2002 but never properly implemented). He says the new bill makes a $10 billion investment in programs that will deliver fresh fruits and vegetables to 35,000 more Montana school children.
Who could argue with that? Not me. Not at a time when food prices have soared along with fuel for tractors, fertilizer and the long drives required in a big rural state where public transportation is an oxymoron.
Minnesota farmers also are grateful for a gradual 5.2 percent increase in the loan rate for sugar beet growers (or a guaranteed price support) and a 4.2 percent increase for cane. The bill also calls on the government to buy surplus domestic sugar and sell it to ethanol producers in the event of a glut of imported sugar. Whoa! Why would we import a commodity when we have a surplus?
So I’m no agricultural trade expert, even though my older sister once had an interest in California sugar production, but I have an idea. What if we went back to using our sugar instead of corn to sweeten processed foods? The ubiquitous high fructose corn syrup, arguably a major factor in soaring rates of diabetes and heart disease, is more difficult to digest than sucrose (from beet or cane). And corn subsidies for ethanol are escalating the price for everything from cereal and tortillas to livestock feed.
So what’s not to like?
Well, it’s a lot of money, and only1 percent of the bill’s total cost will go to hunger relief abroad. Feeding the world’s starving-considering our policies are often at the root of their suffering-may be our moral obligation. But even if our government is deemed culpable, should taxpayers foot the bill or should it be left to donor-supported relief organizations?
Well, that’s not been decided yet, either by voters or those who seek to lead. And even if I could sort this all out, I still wouldn’t know how the candidates would change things given the chance. Heck, I don’t think they even left the campaign trail long enough to vote on this turkey.