When a piece of major legislation championed by Montana’s U.S. delegation is passed, the e-mails are inevitable. Such was the case when the House and Senate signed off on the recent Farm Bill with a veto-proof majority. The inboxes filled up in a hurry.
“This is a good solid bill for farmers and ranchers in Montana,” said Sen. Max Baucus.
Sen. Jon Tester agreed: “It takes steps toward making agriculture a part of energy independence.”
Not to be outdone, Congressman Denny Rehberg declared, “We did it.”
They should hold their applause and Pres. Bush should stick to his guns and veto – even as just a symbolic gesture – a bill that has been roundly, and rightfully, panned as bloated and unnecessary.
The $300 billion piece of legislation includes a slew of pet projects that are sure to boost the election year prospects for the incumbents who supported it. There are tax breaks for Kentucky racehorse owners, aid for salmon fishermen and even cash for Montana conservation groups to help them buy land from Plum Creek Timber Co. and prevent it from being developed. The latter is laudable, but this hardly seems like the place to provide the incentives.
Every five years, the much-debated Farm Bill comes before Congress and each time it is littered with controversial measures. But this year’s price tag is especially ludicrous, given that many large farmers are doing well with key crops drawing record prices.
There is certainly a need for a rainy day fund as a safety net for when farmers battle elements out of their control, such as the weather. And the bill does address the need for increased spending for food stamps at a time when commodity prices have skyrocketed.
The purpose and need for much of the rest is what’s confusing, as are most of the major bills that Congress now passes. Much like the Transportation Bill, which always includes a number of perks that have little to do with transportation ($6 million to fight graffiti), the Farm Bill includes funds for a number of projects that have little to do with farms.
While the government has grown to the largest it’s ever been under Pres. Bush, he certainly looks like the levelheaded party in his opposition to Congress over questionable agricultural subsidies. Even the New York Times editorial page, which delights at prodding the president, praised Bush and urged him to demand that Congress come up with a more sensible bill.
Those demands are sure to fall on deaf ears. As the president’s approval ratings hover in the 20s, many in the GOP believe that openly distancing themselves from him will only help their chances in the November elections. It’s a good year for Republicans to be perceived as independent. And that, of course, is all that really matters: perception, not reality.
So the bill will pass and lawmakers will shoot off e-mails patting themselves on their collective backs, even though all the merits of the legislation are overshadowed by its blatant wastefulness. At least those struggling racehorse owners will now be able to make ends meet.