I didn't support the farm bill and consider it corporate welfare. I believe many of the beneficiaries will be the giant farming conglomerates. OTOH, don't you think most medium and small size farms are owned by conservative Republicans? I do. Was it a pure political decision by PresBush? Sure. But even PresReagan signed a farm bill that produced pretty much the same policy. All presidents sign such bills, because its good politics. In that regard, its a principled decision, just not one I agree with. Farming is also an issue related to foreign competition and the price controls that are placed on imports of American mechandise, by those governments of foreign nations.
So let me see, it's a good principled decision because it's good politics? And how can that possibly translate into good policy? And then why should I have a problem with Bill Clinton and his 8 years? On that note, it would seem bad politics to cater to large corporate farms if the medium and small farmer makes up your core constituency. How then could the farm bill have been a political decision?
Reagan may have signed a bill similar in structure, but not similar in magnitude and complexity. I know, my mother has worked for the FSA since '87, and she can tell you that this bill dwarfs in magnitude and complexity over even what we got now, much less '87.
You are missing my point. What did we conservatives gain from the Farm Bill? NOTHING. We gained absolutely nothing. Compromise is walking away with half a loaf, capitulation is walking away with nothing. And we walked away with nothing. How does this advance conservatism?
As far as the farm issue, it is based on added value agriculture, which is where we need to put our eggs, not on subsidization, which does nothing but keep the current problems alive.