cityslickers_inset.jpg

ABOUT KEN

Ken Cook is president of Environmental Working Group, a public interest research and advocacy organization known for its Farm Subsidy Database. The author of dozens of articles, opinion pieces and reports on agricultural, public health and environmental topics, "[Cook's] fingerprints can be found on nearly two decades of U.S. farm law" (Omaha World Herald). Read more about the authors.

Stay connected

Get our monthly eNewsletter, farm policy updates, & the latest farm news. [Privacy policy]


Search the database

Search by city


Search by zip code

Search by beneficiaries's name
(last)
(first)

Search by business name

MULCH VIA EMAIL

Enter your Email


Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

« BREAKING: USDA Employees Organize Lobbying Campaign
To Strip Civil Rights Provision from Farm Bill
| << Back to main page | Deliberately Hammers
"Reform" Farm Bill »

SF Chronicle Dubs Farm Bill
"Continued Welfare for Wealthy Farmers" Bill

More hometown criticism of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for falling far short of progressives' expectations on both the farm and energy bills. We've mulched the same ground, and noted the contrasting big wins for the conservative agenda of Blue Dog Democrats.

IT'S HARD not to root for a hometown player who has made it so big, but some San Franciscans have been a little disappointed lately with our representative, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. We're especially disappointed with the outcome of two recent big bills, one supposedly having to do with farms and the other supposedly having to do with energy.

If the Bush wiretapping law hasn't been added to the list of ed page disappointments yet, I expect it will be soon.

Pelosi's Scorecard in full in the jump.

Pelosi's scorecard

Tuesday, August 7, 2007

IT'S HARD not to root for a hometown player who has made it so big, but some San Franciscans have been a little disappointed lately with our representative, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. We're especially disappointed with the outcome of two recent big bills, one supposedly having to do with farms and the other supposedly having to do with energy. The Democratic-led House had an opportunity to push forward real solutions on long-standing problems that nearly every American recognizes as wasteful (in the case of trade-distorting, obesity-producing farm subsidies to often-wealthy commodity farmers) and destructive (continued government assistance and encouragement for fossil-fuel industries in the face of global warming). But when it came time to make changes, the Democrats only tinkered at the margins.

The energy bill cuts $16 billion in tax breaks for the oil and gas industry and requires electric utilities to produce 15 percent of their power from renewable fuels by 2020, but there's nary a word about increasing federal fuel economy standards. With the price of oil tipping over the $70-a-barrel mark, ending tax breaks for this industry is a much-needed change, but it's no rousing victory. Increased federal fuel standards are what will make a real difference in the fight against global warming. And the farm bill? It throws a little change at California's fruit-and-nut farmers, but without dismantling the subsidies that have landed America in hot water with the World Trade Organization, it might as well be called the "Continued Welfare for Wealthy Farmers" bill.

Which leads us back to Pelosi - are we disappointed with her failure to produce the results we know she agrees with because she has failed as a leader? Or does her record merely look disappointing because our expectations have been so high?

Pelosi has been lobbying hard to contain a diverse coalition, and she has had to make big compromises. Sustaining the subsidies in the farm bill was an unfortunate bid to keep farm-state Democrats happy (even President Bush pushed for larger reforms) and she has rightly taken much heat for it. But she may redeem that mistake with the energy bill - it does include a renewable energy requirement, and she has made no secret of her goal to include tougher efficiency standards in a conference bill when the House and Senate combine their versions. We hope her savvy tactical skills carry that goal through.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/07/ED8SRDQ6K1.DTL

Comments

"Trade-distorting, obesity-causing, subsidy payments to often-wealthy commodities farmers." Just stick this generalized statement in a newspaper article and it's guaranteed to find its way to the Mulch Blog. Again, I'd ask the editors here if these payments are trade distorting, why did the United States reduce cotton plantings this season to levels not seen since 1989 while almost EVERY other cotton-producing country on the planet, yes including West African countries, INCREASED cotton acreage despite continued low market prices? Could someone please answer this question for the average guy like me?

Mr. Cook doesn't have an answere. But I think if you are a non-profit organization like the ewg is they are subsidized too. They don't pay taxes So they are worse than the farmer , who actually pays taxes.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)