The practice of decorating legislation with billions of dollars in pet projects and federal contracts is thriving on Capitol Hill - despite public outrage that helped flip control of Congress two years ago.The Wilmington Star

Of course it’s still thriving. It doesn’t matter which party Congress flips to if it’s still the same people there plundering our tax dollars to buy votes from lobbyists and special interest groups for their reelection campaigns.

A new earmarking cycle begins this month as the House and Senate Appropriations committees reveal spending bills for the 2009 budget year that starts Oct. 1. The House committee alone has 23,438 earmark requests before it, so many that its Web site for accepting requests froze up, and the deadline for receiving them had to be extended. Lawmakers are unlikely to obtain many earmarks in time for Election Day, but they may tout them in hundreds of press releases anyway.

Defenders of earmarks note that the Founding Fathers explicitly gave Congress control over spending. And earmarks make up less than 2 percent of the annual spending bills passed each year.

Oh, yeah. I’m sure Washington and Jefferson were all about this process when they were risking their lives and personal fortunes on creating an independent nation based on expanded liberty and minimal government. As for that two percent, that could go a long way to helping pay down the national debt.

From the Canadian Free Press:

Where Republicans can pick up is in FL-22. Ron Klein won in 2006 with only 51% of the vote against a good incumbent, but one who was loathe to campaign. Klein hasn’t caught on and most of his support comes solely from his party affiliation.

By contrast, Klein’s 2008 opponent, Lt. Col. Allen West, is a strong and affable campaigner. He also spent a year teaching high school in the district. What’s more, McCain is heavily favored over Obama in this district.

A West election has national ramifications. He brings true leadership and integrity to the House. He’s a great speaker, frank, believable and to the point. If elected, he’ll be the first African-American Republican congressman since J.C. Watts.

I wrote about West several months back. He is a 22 year Army veteran, a retired school teacher, and an awesome candidate to reclaim this seat. The 22nd Congressional District is a gerrymander special that encompasses most of the wealthy coastal communities in southeast Florida, including West Palm Beach and Boca Raton.

West is an advocate of alternative fuels, more precisely sugar based ethanol as used in Brazil. Such an alternative could be an enormous cash cow for southern Florida and lessen our dependence on energy from terrorist nations. He advocates immediately addressing the National Debt with budget cuts across the board and an elimination of earmarks. He addresses the need to enforce our existing immigration laws and national borders with an emphasis on moving the Border Patrol out from under INS and under the DoD.

You can visit West’s campaign site here and read all about his other initiatives. He’s the kind of Republican we need to get elected to pull the party back to its ‘94 Contract with America.

Courtesy of Fox News Sunday on May 25:
WALLACE: Congressman Cole, it’s not my position to give you advice, but let me suggest one idea that you — that the Republican Party could embrace that would send a message, “We’re going to do things differently.” A complete ban on all congressional earmarks. Are Republicans prepared to campaign for November banning all earmarks?
COLE: I think your advice is good, and we’ve actually taken that position as a conference and offered that to our Democratic colleagues.
WALLACE: You’re saying the position — wait a minute. You’re saying the position — you’re saying the position of the Republican Party in the House is no earmarks?
COLE: We have taken that position. There’s actually a piece of legislation — and we’ve said — we’ve challenged the Democrats to join us in that. That is, let’s have a ban on all earmarks, let’s have a special committee set up to examine the problem and then let’s come to a common agreement on it. So far, we haven’t heard a word from the other side. So you know, we’re not in a position to unilaterally make these decisions anymore. We’re not the majority. So frankly, I think that ball rests with them. When they respond to our challenge, I think we could have a really fruitful dialogue.
WALLACE: And I want to bring Congressman Van Hollen in. But you could unilaterally decide each Republican member of Congress not to put in any earmarks.
COLE: You don’t unilaterally decide anything. That’s like unilaterally deciding on term limits or something of that nature. Congress has to work together on common solutions. We’ve put forward a ban. We’ve asked the Democrats to respond. Last time I looked, we hadn’t even had the courtesy of an official response, even though we’d sent a letter to the speaker on this issue. (end quote)

This is yet another example of the “woe is me” caucus in the House. No sir, the Republican party could not stop inserting earmarks without Democrat approval. Yes Congressman, we know that you would legislate in a principled way, if only Speaker Pelosi would respond to your letter.

WASHINGTON - Congress enacted a massive election-year farm bill Thursday over President Bush’s veto, sending new and bigger subsidies for farmers and more food stamps to help the poor with rising grocery prices.The 82-13 vote in the Senate following a 316-108 vote Wednesday night in the House provided Democrats only their second veto override in Bush’s presidency, but they harvested a constitutional controversy with it.

The News & Observer

35 out of 49 Republicans couldn’t resist taking money from the middle and lower classes of America and handing it over to wealthy farmers who are already enjoying soaring incomes. Also stuffed into this bill was an additional $1 billion per year for food stamp welfare handouts, money for alternative energy incentives, millions for Kentucky horse racers, and a bunch of other give aways that have nothing to do with farming.

This is why the Republican Party is not taken seriously anymore by not just conservatives, but independents, fiscal libertarians, and Reagan Democrats. They are not the party of responsible spending. We don’t have a viable one anymore.

These Republicans stood up for fiscal restraint and voted against overriding the President’s veto. And looky, looky! It’s mostly moderates and RINOs. The supposed conservatives of the GOP hopped right on the entitlement bandwagon.

• Bob Bennett - Utah
• Susan Collins - Maine
• Pete Domenici - New Mexico
• John Ensign - Nevada
• Judd Gregg - New Hampshire
• Chuck Hagel - Nebraska
• Jon Kyl - Arizona
• Dick Lugar- Indiana
• Lisa Murkowski - Alaska
• John Sununu - New Hampshire
• George Voinovich - Ohio

They were joined by Democrats Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, both of Rhode Island. Jim DeMint (R-SC) voted present, for whatever reason, and Tom Coburn (R-OK), John McCain (R-AZ), Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Barack Obama (D-IL) did not vote.

Citizens Against Government Waste have released their Congressional Pig Book Summary of earmarks that were appropriated for 2008. Here are the top Republican porkers:

In the House:

1. Roger Wicker (MS-1) - $176.3 million
2. Bill Young (FL-10) - $169.5 million
6. Jerry Lewis (CA-41) - $139.9 million
12. Jack Kingston (GA-1) - $101.3 million
13. Bobby Jindal (LA-1) - $100.4 million
22. Dave Hobson (OH-7) - $88 million
23. Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ-11) - $86.8 million
24. Heather Wilson (NM-1) - $86.8 million
29. Hal Rogers (KY-5) - $80.7 million
30. Charlie Dent (PA-15) - $77.8 million

Interestingly enough, even in the minority the House GOP managed to take the numbers one and two spots as biggest porker.

In the Senate:

1. Thad Cochran (MS) - $892.2 million
2. Ted Stevens (AK) - $469.4 million
3. Richard Shelby (AL) - $464.5 million
8. Chuck Grassley (IA) - $321.4 million
9. Kit Bond (MO) - $309.8 million

In the Senate, we managed to take the top three spots.

These amounts are obscene.

Can you say quid pro quo?

Dan Riehl notes, via Amanda Carpenter, that in the list of earmarks he requested, $1 Million was requested for the construction of a new hospital pavilion at the University Of Chicago. The request was put in in 2006.

You know who works for the University of Chicago Hospital?

Michelle Obama. She’s vice president of community affairs.

As Byron noted, “In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama’s compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office.”

Looks like that raise was worth it.

My wife now wants me to run.

Not surprisingly but the Senate voted yesterday against Senator DeMint’s (R, SC) amendment for a 1 year moratorium on earmarks. Here are the Republican swine who voted against the amendment. Feel free to give them a call at (202) 224-3121.

Bennett (UT)
Domenici (NM)
Smith, G. (OR)
Bond (MO)
Gregg (NH)
Snowe (ME)
Brownback (KS)
Hagel (NE)
Specter (PA)
Bunning (KY)
Hatch (UT)
Stevens (AK)
Cochran (MS)
Hutchinson (TX)
Vitter (LA)
Coleman (MN)
Lugar (IN)
Voinovich (OH)
Collins (ME)
Murkowski (AK)
Warner (VA)
Craig (ID)
Roberts (KS)
Wicker (MS)
Crapo (ID)
Shelby (AL)

U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis plans to vote for legislation mandating a one-year moratorium on congressional earmarks, you know, those little spending add-ons that helped Republicans go from the majority to the minority in 2006, forcibly retiring a bunch of them along the way.

But, the Travelers Rest Republican says if the bill fails, he won ‘t be joining fellow Republican Joe Wilson of Lexington in swearing off earmarks for a year anyway.

“I’m very supportive of the earmark moratorium and will vote for it,” Inglis says, describing the plan as a needed reform on the road to abolishing the practice.

“But in the meantime, there will be some requests this year from South Carolina” that need to be addressed if they meet his criteria of economic development, local matching funds and serving the national interest.

The Greenville News

What I read here is political posturing in an election year. How can Inglis expect anyone to take him seriously as a fiscal reformer when he says he’ll still stick his hand in the cookie jar if the rules don’t change? Yeah, we hear you, Bob. Earmarks are bad and all, but you’re going to make sure you still get your share of slop from the community trough all the same. Apparently some Republicans are adapting to life in the Minority rather well.

Cross posted at Carolina Politics Online

This isn’t on YouTube as far as I can see, and I can’t embed code for the site this video comes from, but you should go here and watch the entire excellent speech Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) gave today on the Senate floor.

My home district congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL), whose first campaign in 2000 was my introduction to the world of electoral politics, has become the first appropriator in the United States House of Representatives to swear off earmarks.

The Club for Growth has the full list of members of congress who support the moratorium on earmarks.

The most corrupt and longest-serving (what a coincidence!) Republican in the Senate, Ted Stevens, is in for the race of his life.  Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich has formed an exploratory committee to take a look at a bid, and forming it this late strongly suggests that he simply wants two days of free media rather than one.  He enters the race, according to one poll, with a lead on Stevens, who has all but been accused of accepting bribes by Veco Chairman Bill Allen, for whom he obtained earmkars.

Stevens is as corrupt as could be and his whole state knows it.  It doesn’t exactly help that he’s campaigning, as always, on his ability to waste taxpayer dollars on special projects in his state.  He has never been a friend of conservatives because of his pork barrel spending, and Democrats don’t like him thanks to their partisanship.  He has always won by carrying the “I want free stuff” milddle.  Well, that middle is likely to respond to the charges of corruption.

I don’t like advocating the defeat of Republicans in general elections, but if we don’t replace this guy in the primary, we deserve to lose the general.  Ultimately his defeat, either in the primary or in the general, would be best for the Party because Stevens is the poster boy for what’s wrong with the GOP.  He’s corrupt.  He’s a porker.  He’s a social liberal.  He may even be indicted soon.

Come on, Alaska, you replaced the guy who gave his daughter a Senate seat.  Can you come through again?

Taxpayers for Common Sense has comprised a list of the amount of earmarks each member of Congress accumulated in this year’s spending bills. Obscene doesn’t even begin to describe the waste. GOP Congressmen Bill Young (FL-10) and Jerry Lewis (CA-41) were the worst offenders in the House with earmarks in excess of $100 million! The Senate was even more repulsive with four GOP Senators breaking the $100 million mark and going as high as almost $400 million! Those four Senators were Ted Stevens (AK), Thad Cochran (MS), Kit Bond (MO), Richard Shelby (AL).

The following legislators requested zero earmarks:

House

• John Boehner (R-OH-8)
• Paul Broun (R-GA-10)
• Eric Cantor (R-VA-7)
• Jeff Flake (R-AZ-6)
• Vito Fossella (R-NY-13)
• Jeb Hensarling (R-TX-5)
• John Kline (R-MN-2)
• John Shadegg (R-AZ-3)
• Lee Terry (R-NE-2)

Senate

• Tom Coburn (R-OK)
• Jim DeMint (R-SC)
• Russ Feingold (D-WI)
• John McCain (R-AZ)
• Claire McCaskill (D-MO)

You can view the total spreadsheet here.

Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) clashed late last year during a closed-door luncheon as they debated whether Republicans should take a strong stand against earmarking.

DeMint, the leader of the conservative Steering Committee, called for a renewed emphasis to rein in pet projects, angering Stevens, the notorious earmarker and senior appropriator from Alaska.

At the November meeting of DeMint’s committee, a fuming Stevens called on former Steering Committee heads to convene an unusual meeting to discuss the panel’s future steps, according to one person knowledgeable of the situation.

Calling for a meeting was an “obvious message” by Stevens that he wanted DeMint removed as chairman because of the junior conservative’s relentless push against earmarks, the source said, asking for anonymity because the talks generally occur in confidence.

“He certainly spoke up in some of our Steering Committee lunches and expressed his displeasure,” DeMint said in a recent interview.

“I’ve made a lot of enemies within my own party, but I think some of these folks have the responsibility to show what it means to be a Republican,” said DeMint.

Aaron Saunders, a spokesman for Stevens, said his boss was “part of a group of several senators who were simply discussing the general management of the Steering Committee.”

Saunders said Stevens “made no such statement” about DeMint’s ouster, and DeMint could not recall whether the Alaskan sought to remove him from the post. Steering Committee staff declined to comment.

The Hill

If the Republicans really wanted to take back Congress this is how they could do it.  They could make a pledge to completely eliminate earmarks 100%.  Not a single one of them would request another.  They’d prove to the American people that they are going to walk the walk.  This won’t happen, of course, because there are too many in the party more concerned about buying votes for their reelection and you have senile old coots like Ted Stevens who get high off of the power they wield with our tax dollars.   Fortunately, I think 2008 will be the last we see of Ted Stevens.  He’s either going to jail or he is going to be defeated for reelection.

Even though the earmark push faces resistance within the GOP, DeMint and other conservatives say it would be wildly popular with the public and bring the party back to its core roots of fiscal conservatism.

“I think earmarks have basically destroyed the Republican Party,” DeMint said.

DeMint makes me proud to say I live in South Carolina.

As RedState puts it, “The Craptacular Capitulation of a Lame Duck.”

WASHINGTON — President Bush is unlikely to defy Congress on spending billions of dollars earmarked for pet projects, but he will probably insist that lawmakers provide more justification for such earmarks in the future, administration officials said Monday. (story here)

Translation: “Don’t do it again! But I’m going to let you do it just this once…” (Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle snicker with glee)

Fiscal conservatives in Congress and budget watchdogs have been urging Mr. Bush to issue an executive order instructing agencies to disregard the many earmarks listed just in committee reports, not in the text of legislation.

More than 90 percent of earmarks are specified that way, not actually included in the texts. White House officials say such earmarks are not legally binding on the president.

Emphasis mine. The next logical step for a real conservative President would be to gut these non-binding earmarks, right? Well, yeah, but Bush isn’t exactly a conservative President.

Congressional leaders of both parties, who are scheduled to meet on Tuesday with the president, said Mr. Bush would provoke a huge outcry on Capitol Hill if he ignored those earmarks.

Waaaaah! We want our pork and we want it now!

Lawmakers, including the House Republican whip, Roy Blunt of Missouri, have cautioned the White House that a furor over earmarks could upend Mr. Bush’s hopes for cooperation with Congress on other issues, including efforts to revive the economy.

Moreover, Republicans shudder at the possibility that a Democratic president might reject all their earmarks.

Again, all emphases are mine. Heaven forbid a Democratic president striking favors earmarks from a bill! Why? Well, because there’s an “R” next to that legislator’s name!

So it goes. Fiscal conservatism, who needs it?

Fred Thompson was the ONLY candidate (well, serious candidate, Ron Paul did as well) to say outright that he would issue the executive order against these “air-dropped” earmarks.

Ridiculousness like this is why people like me aren’t taking the “but you’ll let Hillary win!!” line when it comes to the “Republican” candidates.

What’s the difference, honestly?

Sen. McCain will interfere in the market (and give taxpayer dollars to people who lose manufacturing jobs - so why would they look for another one?), be against tax reform, embrace Al Gore’s Global Warming Government Expansionist argument, and appoint judges who will side with him on McCain-Feingold - meaning not judges like Alito, Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas. He’ll close Guantanamo Bay and argue that intense interrogation of terrorists to save American lives is actually “torture.” Not to mention, he has a temper and a vindictiveness similar to that of the Clintons.

Gov. Romney still supports the federal “assault weapons” ban. He’s an advocate of government mandates for healthcare (see RomneyCare). He recently said he was disappointed that there wasn’t a federal program to help Detroit automakers, and basically pledged to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to “save” Detroit if he becomes President. Michigan voted for him, so they will expect results. He’s a friend of Ted Kennedy. I haven’t even touched his convenient “conversion” to social conservatism - he turns me off enough today with stuff he’s saying now, so his “change of heart” is just icing on the cake.

Huckabee? Do I really have to go to the John Edwards wannabe? Yeah, he’ll be a real strong advocate for fiscal conservatism and limited government, let me tell ya! (snark off). Not to mention he’s one of the most immature, unserious candidates on either side of the race.

If we’re going to give this country to statists, by all means do it under the Democratic banner, not the Republican one.

UPDATE: Stop The ACLU has more of this line of thinking, referencing Stephen Bainbridge and even Rush Limbaugh.

UPDATE II: The Club for Growth has more details on the fallout from this move by the Bush Administration, and a round-up of conservative response around the blogosphere and in the media.

UPDATE III: Michelle Malkin has an excellent round-up of McCain’s ridiculous position on illegal immigration, which I failed to mention originally.

Lest anyone thought that the kings of corruption hailed for the Alaska GOP, a Louisiana Democrat has decided to remind everyone just who the top banana is when it comes to corruption. Topping Rep. William Jefferson, whose price was at least $90,000, Senator Mary Landrieu is now being accused of taking a bribe of a mere $30,000 for a $2 million earmark. Talk about a cheap date.

On April 25, 2001, Voyager, an educational products company, requested an earmark for the purchase of its products for the District of Columbia. By September, no Senate sponsor had been found. Randy Best, Voyager’s founder, arranged for a meeting with Landrieu. A few days later a Landrieu staffer asked Best to host a fundraiser. Four days after receiving the $30,000 in contributions from people who had never before contributed to her, she put in the earmark. What a coincidence.

The annual Repork Cards have been released by the Club for Growth. The scores are based on 50 anti-pork amendment introduced in the House by John Cambpell (R-CA), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX). Only one amendment actually passed the House out of the 50. 16 Republicans scored a 100%:

24 Republicans scored a 0%. They did not vote for a single pork stripping amendment.

In the Senate the score was based on 15 pork stripping amendments introduced by Senators Tom Coburn (OK) and Jim DeMint (SC). Four Republicans scored a 100% (McCain only cast a vote on two of the amendments):

It was a four way tie for the lowest scoring Republican(s):

The average scores for Republicans were 59% in the Senate and 43% in the House, which are just absolutely pitiful.

If you were bored enough to watch the House floor during the budget debate yesterday, you may have seen conservative lawmakers like Marsha Blackburn, Paul Ryan and Mike Pence leading the crusade against the earmark-laden omnibus spending bill.

But even these fiscal hawks, all members of the conservative Republican Study Committee, haven’t totally sworn off earmarks and don’t plan to.

Blackburn, of Tennessee, has attached her name to a $784,000 earmark for Appalachian horticulture research for the University of Tennessee. Pence, of Indiana, a former chairman of the RSC, nabbed $400,000 for public transit for Anderson, Ind. And Ryan of Wisconsin, one of a handful of 30-something up and comers in the GOP conference, will send home $750,000 for the Janesville, Wis., city transit system. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), an RSC member who has developed a reputation as a conservative rabble rouser on the House floor, was co-sponsor of a $1.5 million earmark for the Statesville Regional Airport improvements.

To his credit, a search for the name of RSC Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), turns up no earmarks. And Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), along with Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), also will go without any earmarks in this year’s omnibus. Conservatives as a whole receive fewer earmarks, according to this chart.

The Politico

I just thought those were some interesting facts.  Senator DeMint of my state has also requested no earmarks this year, while Lindsay Graham, the other Senator we try to forget about, has had his hands deep in the trough.

The House’s 272-142 vote also sent the president a $555 billion catchall spending bill that combines the war money with money for 14 Cabinet departments. War spending aside, Bush’s GOP allies were divided over whether the overall spending bill was a victory for their party in the monthslong fight with Democrats over agency budgets.Conservatives and outside groups such as the Club for Growth, which seeks to elect lawmakers opposed to tax and spending increases, criticized the bill for having about $28 billion in domestic spending that topped Bush’s budget and was paid for by a combination of “emergency” spending, transfers from the defense budget and other maneuvers.Republican leaders acknowledged some excesses. But they said the measure could have cost a lot more if the GOP and the White House not stood firm against more than $20 billion in additional domestic spending included in Democratic spending bills that passed last summer.

“The fact is we got the number down to the baseline,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

My Way News

As if that makes me feel any better. This bill had 11,144 earmarks in it and I heard on the news this evening that several of the earmarks didn’t even indicate what they were for. They pointed out an example of a $1 million earmark for Detroit with no stated purpose on what the money is going to be spent on. Furthermore, they didn’t have the final version of the bill, with dozens of added earmarks to it, even 24 hours before they voted on it. How can 272 House members and 76 Senators vote for a bill for over half a trillion dollars that they haven’t even read?

14 Republican Senators voted against this.

Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Voinovich (R-OH)

Senator DeMint has the full list of earmarks at his Web site.  FYI, it takes a while to load.

Mr. McCain is almost as scathing about his own party’s behavior in power as he is about Congress’s current leaders. Of the Republican congressional majority that was voted out in 2006, he says: “We let spending get out of control. . . . And we would have won the 2006 elections if we had restrained spending. Our base didn’t desert us because of the war in Iraq. Our base deserted us because of the Bridge to Nowhere. I’ll take you to a town hall tomorrow and I’ll say ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ and everyone in that room will know what I’m talking about. That bridge is more famous than the Brooklyn Bridge.”

That version of the events of November 2006 is not universally shared, even within the GOP, but it does serve Mr. McCain’s interests pretty well. He has been one of the most prominent and unapologetic supporters of the war in Iraq, even though he at times disagreed with the administration about tactics and strategy.

And he voted against the Bush tax cuts–even though he admits that they helped the economy in the midst of a recession. “We all know that [they helped]. Without a doubt. Without the slightest doubt. Absolutely.”

Even so, he defends his opposition to them on the grounds, he told us, that Congress couldn’t get spending under control. “I opposed the tax cuts because there was no spending restraint. . . . If we’d enacted spending restraints, we’d be talking about more tax cuts today. And to the everlasting shame and embarrassment of the Republican Party and this administration, we went on a spending spree and we didn’t pay for it. . . . And every time I called over to the White House and said, look, you’ve got to veto these bills, the answer was, ‘We’ll lose the majority, we’ll lose this election, we’ll lose the speaker.’ Well, you know what happened.”

The words “I told you so” don’t quite pass his lips, but his sense of vindication is plain enough.

As for the tax cuts themselves, he now pledges that he would fight to make them permanent. “I will not agree to any tax increase,” he says. And then once more for emphasis: “I will not agree to any tax increase.”

The Opinion Journal

Fiscal issues are my number one priority when I vote in next month’s primary. McCain just scored a 100%. In my opinion, the spending and the national debt are the biggest threat facing the country right now, not Islamic terrorism, not to downplay that as a problem, but our debt is being financed by countries like China and our currency is steadily devaluing. Congress is mortgaging our future to satisfy their own greed for power. We’re going to be in a lot of trouble if this isn’t reigned in.

The Senate on Friday approved a $286 billion farm bill with an election-year expansion of subsidies for growers and food stamps for the poor.The bill, passed on a 79-14 vote, expands subsidies for wheat, barley, oat, soybeans and several other crops and creates new grants for vegetable and fruit growers.It also increases loan rates for sugar producers, extends dairy programs and provides more dollars for renewable energy and conservation programs to protect environmentally sensitive farmland over the next five years.President Bush has threatened to veto the legislation, saying it costs too much and should instead be cutting subsidies at a time of record-high crop prices. He also has threatened to veto a House version passed in July.

Unlike the Senate, the House did not approve the bill by a veto-proof majority, or two-thirds of the chamber. That vote was 231-191.

White House opposition and criticism from fiscal conservatives have so far had little impact on the politically popular bill.

SFGate

This is one of the most unmitigated wastes in our government, paying people to grow things they’ve been growing for over a hundred years. This is a quarter of a trillion dollars. Imagine how quick the National Debt could be paid down if they took all of the farm subsidies and put it on paying the debt.

11 Republicans voted against this:

Bennett (R-UT)
Burr (R-NC)
Collins (R-ME)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
Sununu (R-NH)
Voinovich (R-OH)