It's unfortunate Clinton has decided to further tarnish her tough-on-policy credentials by slamming McCain for his willingness to echo Bush's refusal to accept the current farm bill. But that's exactly what she's done, in a press release that quotes her accordingly: "Rural America is struggling in the face of skyrocketing energy prices, an economic downturn and rising food prices....Saying no to the farm bill would be saying no to rural America."
The trouble is that on this count, both McCain and Bush areactually right (marking perhaps a first among Bush's myriad vetothreats this year). To date, Congress has given an icy reception toeven the lukewarm reforms the White House has proposed, like cappingfederal payments to farmers making an annual $200,000 income. Instead,the bill in its present form--among its manyfailings--continues fully subsidize farmers who make as much as $1 million a year. What's more, federal subsidies aren't fully phased out until a farmer's income hits $1.95 million.
To be sure, presidential candidates generally tend to morph into acrowd of shrinking violets when it comes to reworking the behemoththat is the U.S. farm bill (which, it should be noted, also containskey priorities, e.g. on nutrition). But if Clinton wants to staycredible as a candidate who can roll up her sleeves against specialinterests, she'd do well to hold off on cynical attacks when heropponent aims to do just that.
--Te-Ping Chen
