Farm Follies
A bill that richly deserves a veto.

By John J. Miller & Ramesh Ponnuru
November 30, 2001 2:00 p.m.

he Farm Security Act currently porking its way through Congress is an outrage, and President Bush should consider it an honor to make it the recipient of his first veto. The bill would increase farm subsidies by $69 billion. Is there a farm crisis to justify this largesse? Far from it. Farm income is at a record high, as is the net worth of the average farmer-and both are higher than the average for Americans who do not farm.

And it's not the average farmer who receives the bulk of the subsidies anyway. Sixty percent of farmers don't get subsidies, generally because the crops they grow don't qualify. The payment system is skewed to subsidize the largest and richest farmers.

Brian Riedl and John Frydenlund have just done a paper for the Heritage Foundation that lists some of the people who do receive tax money for farming (or, in some cases, for not farming). Scottie Pippen-whose salary is $18.1 million-has gotten $100,000 over the last five years for not planting crops on his land in Arkansas. Ted Turner has pulled in $176,077.

For some congressmen, charity begins at home. California Republican Doug Ose sits on the House Agriculture Committee. He's also the partial owner of two companies that have received $149,000 in farm subsidies over the last five years. Like all the worst rackets in Washington, this one is bipartisan: Arkansas Democrat Marion Berry, who's also on the committee, has gotten $750,449 over the same period.

Liberals should be repulsed by a bill that showers tax dollars on people who don't need them while raising the price of milk. Conservatives should rebel against its trampling of free-market principles. Stuart Butler, also of Heritage, is calling on President Bush to issue a clear threat to veto the bill if it is not improved before final passage. We would add only that he should also follow through on that threat.

Canceled Appointment
The White House has shown no inclination to respond to Senate Democratic obstructionism by making recess appointments of its embattled nominees. It's probably just as well. Even if President Bush wanted to make recess appointments, he won't be able to: The Senate isn't going to recess for the holidays. It will merely adjourn. The reason given is that the Senate must be able to reconvene immediately in case of a national emergency. But it also blocks Bush from making recess appointments. Looks like Otto Reich, John Walters, et al will have to wait a little longer.