The nuclear option

If President Bush is serious about vetoing a farm bill with any tax increases or "budget gimmicks," is Colin Peterson serious about letting U.S. farm policy revert to the 1940s? Possibly so, and election year politics make the scenario somewhat more realistic. There is increasing talk about the 1949 farm bill law in relationship to the current struggle to get a farm bill passed that President Bush will sign. Here is coverage from The Des Moines Register about the scenario.

From the Register:

Congress has until March 15 to send Bush a farm bill that he will sign into law or else lawmakers will have to pass another extension to the 2002 farm bill. Without that extension, a permanent 1949 law takes effect that will require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to increase price supports for several commodities, including milk, corn and wheat.
The biggest impact on consumers would likely be in the dairy case. Under the 1949 law, farmers would be guaranteed at least $28 per hundred pounds for milk, a 40 percent increase over current market prices.The law also would allow the government to restrict production of wheat and cotton.The chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Minnesota Democrat Collin Peterson, said the 1949 law would be so unpalatable to the Bush administration that he's considering allowing it to take effect if the president insists on vetoing whatever farm bill Congress sends him.Peterson admitted that the White House believes he's bluffing. "Is this leverage?" Peterson said recently. "Sure, but it's also something I'm willing to live with." He said he would rather activate the 1949 law than give the White House another short extension of the 2002 farm bill. His Senate counterpart, Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin, said activating the 1949 law "is a real possibility" though he doesn't support the idea.

TK: Peterson and the House were the first to finish the farm bill last year, so it must be frustrating to see the possibility of all that work going for naught. Peterson recently argued that is unfair to require Congress to adhere to "pay-go" when the Administration is trying to create a megabilliion tax rebate stimulus package that has no such fiscal rules. I think the produce industry should be thankful that Peterson, among others, is making such a strong push for a new farm bill, and not merely an extension of the existing legislation. Without these hardball tactics, it is more than likely no new farm bill will be signed into law this year.