It seems we are talking with Iran. But I thought Senator Obama said the administration was lacking for not doing so.

President Bush would veto a multibillion-dollar House bill extending government farm and nutrition programs because it doesn’t do enough to reduce subsidies to growers, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said Wednesday.

Charlotte Observer

Why is the Federal Government subsidizing farmers at all?  Where is that in the Constitution?  This bill prevents subsidies to farmers with incomes of more than $1 million a year, so a farmer who makes $750,000 deserves a subsidy?  The only true reform is to completely eliminate the subsidies altogether.

Johanns also criticized a proposal by Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, to pay for $4 billion in nutrition and food stamp programs by taxing overseas businesses that have subsidiaries in the United States. Doggett is on the Ways and Means Committee, which is charged with finding the nutrition money.

“I find it unacceptable to raise taxes to pay for a farm bill that contains virtually no reform,” Johanns said.

Republicans on the Agriculture panel have supported the committee bill but have said they would not want to vote for a bill that raises taxes.

Johanns praised a proposed amendment by Reps. Ron Kind, D-Wis., Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and others to further cut back on subsidies and steer more money toward conservation, aid for specialty crops like fruits and vegetables, and nutrition and rural development programs.

“We see that as a real attempt at reform,” Johanns said.

Kind’s effort, which he said could cost $13 billion less, has divided Democrats and caused concern among farm-state lawmakers who argue it would devastate agricultural programs and cost the party its newly won majority.

Well, at least they just admitted what is actually important to them

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) plans to review the Senate testimony of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito to determine if their reversal of several long-standing opinions conflicts with promises they made to senators to win confirmation.

Specter, who championed their confirmation, said Tuesday he will personally re-examine the testimony to see if their actions in court match what they told the Senate.

The Politico

Once again you can count on Arlen Specter to suck up to the far left and spit on the American people.  He is accusing Roberts and Alito of not living up to their promise to respect precedent.  Well, if that precedent was a bad decision, why should it be held up?  Should the Supreme Court have held up Plessy v Ferguson in 1954 so that we would still have segregated schools today?

The idea for a review came to Specter when he said he ran into Justice Stephen G. Breyer at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado.

Breyer, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, drew attention last month for suggesting that Roberts and the conservative majority were flouting stare decisis, the legal doctrine that, for the sake of stability, courts should generally leave past decisions undisturbed.

“It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much,” Breyer said, reading his dissent from the bench to a 5-4 ruling that overturned school desegregation policies in two cities.

Oh, cry about it.  This is coming from the man who looks to international laws to base his decisions.  Breyer deserves to be removed from the court simply for that.  When have we seen conservative Supreme Court justices going around bad mouthing the left leaning ones on the court?  Where were the probes into Breyer, Stephens, Ginsburg, and Souter when they upheld eminent domain for nonessential government use?  Or how about when they stepped on the First Amendment by upholding CFR?

I sure hope George Bush is still proud of himself for keeping Specter in the Senate.