The next time House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid talk about ending poverty, stopping giveaways for wealthy corporations and finding bipartisan solutions, remember their work on the 2007 farm bill.

Before adjourning for the holidays, the Senate endorsed a $286 billion farm bill that is only slightly less wasteful and indefensible than the porkfest the House passed earlier in the year.

Despite a few nods at "reform," the Senate bill continues and expands subsidies for millionaire corporate farmers. It undercuts growers in Africa and developing countries who are desperate to compete on a level playing field. It spurs the overproduction of corn-syrup products that contribute to obesity. And it represents a slap in the face to the Bush administration, which rightly urged Congress to scale back the subsidies and pass a fiscally responsible bill.

For a moment in mid-December, there appeared to be a glimmer of hope. A bipartisan majority of senators rallied behind an amendment by Sen. Bryon Dorgan, D-N.D., and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, that would have capped farm support payments to $250,000 per farm each year. That would have freed up funds for food stamps, farm conservation programs and other, more worthy investments.

But that amendment and other reforms were rebuffed by a coalition of Southern senators, led by Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., whose family has received farm subsidies in the past. Lincoln and other allies of Southern cotton and rice persuaded Reid to attach a 60-vote rule for passage of the Dorgan-Grassley amendment. Reformers were able to get just 56 votes, and so the Senate ultimately went on to endorse a bill that was effectively written by the beneficiaries of continued subsidies.

The action now moves to a House-Senate conference committee, which will give Pelosi and Reid some latitude to not only reconcile the two bills, but to shape them into something the president might sign.

Bush and his aides have threatened to veto the current work products. The White House contends the Senate bill includes up to $15 billion in tax increases to pay for bloated subsidies.

Although the Senate's 79-14 vote suggests that Bush may risk an override by waving his veto pen, Democratic leaders — particularly Pelosi — should think long and hard before playing this gambit. Most voters have an unfavorable view of Congress and are frustrated that lawmakers and the White House can't find common ground on popular causes.

Reforming the farm bill should be one area where Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree. The reform coalition includes fiscal hawks, environmentalists, small farmers, supporters of fair trade and more than 300 editorial boards across the country.

All want a bill that rewards innovation, resource protection and a more healthful U.S. diet, while limiting the waste and abuse of past farm bills.

Pelosi and Reid could still move the farm bill in this direction. But to do so, they will have to show more courage than they did in 2007.

— Sacramento Bee

For the last several weeks, President Bush has been hammering Democrats about excessive spending and, in particular, the use of special appropriations for pet projects known as "earmarks." Yes, Congress needs to break its addiction to earmarks, but the president's sudden emergence as a strict fiscal conservative can hardly be considered credible given his record as the biggest spender in the Oval Office since Lyndon Johnson.In one of his latest harangues against the Democrats who control Congress, Bush said that he was "disappointed" to receive an omnibus spending bill that includes 9,800 earmarks. No doubt there are too many turkeys in that bill, but where was the presidential ire when the GOP-controlled Congress sent him earmark-laden funding bills time after time during the first six years of his tenure? The notorious 2005 highway bill that contained thousands of earmarks cost $295 billion, and Bush signed it without complaint. In the 12 previous years of Republican control of Congress, the number of earmarks had tripled to nearly 13,000 per year, costing $64 billion at their peak.The new Congress has made some progress, albeit not much.Bush has complained about too much spending in general, but that, too, seems to be an argument ginned up solely for the sake of burnishing his lackluster credentials as a money manager. The dispute over the big omnibus spending bill involved $23 billion more than Bush wanted — a significant amount but less than 1 percent of the $2.9 trillion budget and a drop in the bucket compared to the runaway spending of the last few years.When he became president, the national debt stood at $5.95 trillion, but it has now soared to $9.815 trillion, a stunning 65 percent increase. The national debt was 57 percent of the gross national product; today, it's 65 percent. And it hasn't been just for defense and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Besides the earmarks, there was the $700 billion Medicare prescription drug benefit — the biggest expansion in Medicare history — 18 percent annual increases to pay for No Child Left Behind and other education programs and an increase of 100 percent in agriculture spending compared to 1990s levels.With only one year left in office, it's far too late for Bush to try to reclaim the title of fiscal conservative. Congress will have to do better when it comes to controlling earmarks and spending, and it will be up to the next president to figure out how to restore a measure of fiscal sanity to the federal budget.<b><i>— The Miami Herald</I></b>