For the full article, click on the headline above.
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns told reporters today the administration does not support the farm bill version as it was approved out of the House Agriculture Committee last week. In its current form Johanns said President Bush would veto the bill because it does not go far enough to reform current farm policy. In addition, sources now say extra funding will require raising taxes to pay for increased costs.
He explained that the House Ways and Means Committee may raise taxes on businesses that are housed overseas to pay for the extra $4 billion for nutrition.
"We find it unacceptable to raise taxes to fund a farm bill that contains no reform," Johanns stated. "The House bill actually takes a step backward and puts a larger bull's eye on the backs of US farmers when it comes to trade."
Several provisions of the administration's farm bill proposal were included in the House version. Others contained portions of the proposal, such as the idea of offering farmers the choice between current programs or revenue-based countercyclical problems. The House also approved dealing with payment limitations based on adjusted gross income (AGI). However, Johanns said the $1 million limit is too high compared to the administration's proposed $200,000 level.
Johanns' areas of concern:
Kind amendment
Johanns said of nearly all of the priorities that are missing from the House bill, there are amendments that will be proposed on the floor tomorrow. And yes, one of them is the Kind-Flake updated reform bill announced on Tuesday.
Johanns noted their new proposal moves in the direction of the administration's proposal. The AGI limit is one of them at $250,000, closer than any other to the administration's proposed $200,000 limit.
Read an earlier post today to see what Peterson and industry groups think about the bill.
Food for thought
The last time a president vetoed an omnibus farm bill it was 1956. One reporter on the call questioned whether the House had the votes to override a veto. And if they didn't, they'd likely get an extension of the 2002 Farm Bill.
Is this what Peterson wants? Possibly.
Johanns defended the comments, stating the president's goal is to get a bill signed on his desk yet this year. "Please do not assume we have any preference of an extension of the 2002 Farm Bill. We do not support that approach."
Policy is one of the most important issues facing farmers today, but often the most difficult to digest. Jacqui Fatka has a passion to decode the often difficult world of agricultural policy into terms understandable for today's ag players.
Fatka joined the Farm Progress team as E-Content Editor in August 2003 after graduating from Iowa State University. Prior to full-time employment with Farm Progress, she interned at Wallaces Farmer magazine, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley's press office and the Iowa Pork Producers Association and freelanced for National Hog Farmer. She also worked as a public relations consultant with Iowa Industries for the Future, an effort to bring together major players in the biorenewables industry.
Currently Fatka is a staff editor at a sister publication, Feedstuffs. For Farm Futures she regularly tells the story of ongoing agricultural policy changes. Her byline can also be found on management profiles.
Fatka grew up on a grain and livestock farm near Atlantic, Iowa. She currently lives in central Ohio with her husband Eric.
Powered by iNet Solutions Group ©2011 All Rights Reserved.