Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
What happened to the outrage on the wealthy getting the biggest benefit? Different from tax rate cuts, where in many cases the taxes paid in total dollars by rich people went up, here we are talking about taxes paid by middle/lower class income earners going directly into the pockets of rich people. How can Democrats compromise in such a manner, given what they say about rich people getting advantages under the Bush administration? I just don't get this whole "compromise" your principles thing. But then I assume people make decisions based on principles, is that where I am wrong?
|
The wealthy are not getting the greatest share of this bill. Two-thirds of the bill's total funding is for food nutrition and support programs for the urban/rural poor.
And beyond that, with the new income limits for subsidy recipients, the millionaire farmers are even getting less as a percentarge of overall recipients of the subsidy component than they did in the 2002 bill.
As I said...this is a dramatic reallocation of resources from the 2002 Republican bill!
The bill passed the House today by veto-proof margin and should pass the Senate by early next week.
Compromise is the Dems
giving a little to the Repub supporters of rich farmers (14% of the bill, although a greater percentage of subsidy recipients this time around will not be weathy farmers) and
getting alot in return for the urban/rural poor and working class (66% of the bill)..and a agricultural land conservation program in addition.
Thats how compromise works...especially when you can
give a little and
get alot. I take it from your comments, that you think such a compromise is unprincipled. IMO, its pragmatic politics.
If I were cynical, I could suggest the Bush enthusiastically supported the 2002 bill because it's beneficiaries were almost exclusively millionaire farmer friends and contributors...and he will veto this bill because it disproportionately benefits the urban/rural poor and working class.