In February the House passed the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act, or H.R. 5351, which would repeal the $18 billion in tax breaks for multinational oil companies. The bill would create tax breaks for producers of renewable energy, fuel, and electricity. The bill needs Senate approval.

During a speech while the House debated the bill, U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) said, "We're wrapped around the axle of oil because of these tax subsidies. It's time to change course. We're ready to launch a rocket of clean-energy innovation in this country, but opponents of these clean-energy investments are putting a hold on the countdown. We're about two seconds away from having a burst of economic growth in this county. If they allow these tax breaks to expire, it'll strangle the birth of new industries."

...

"With oil prices and oil company profits breaking records, the big five oil companies-BP plc, Chevron Corp, ConoccoPhillips Inc, ExxonMobil Corp., and Royal Dutch Shell Group-could easily afford to give up this tax loophole. It is a paltry amount compared to the $123 billion in profits they made last year-nearly $230,000 in profits per minute. And when oil is over $100 per barrel, they shouldn't need any incentives to drill for more," Daniel Weiss declared in an article for the Center for American Progress.

...

In 1999 the government created guaranteed loans of up to $10 million for eligible oil and gas producers. The loans are financed through private banking and investment institutions, but are guaranteed by federal taxes, "making liable for up to $500 million should the companies default," according to the SEC report, and "that number jumps to $600 million if the administrative costs associated with the program are included.

Over $400 million of overseas refinery taxes are subsidized by federal taxes "which increases refinery capacity overseas rather than within our own borders," the SEC report stated.

Only hours before the House's 316-108 vote, Bush had vetoed the five-year measure, saying it was too expensive and gave too much money to wealthy farmers when farm incomes are high. The Senate then was expected to follow suit quickly.

Action stalled, however, after the discovery that Congress had omitted a 34-page section of the bill when lawmakers sent the massive measure to the White House.

That means Bush vetoed a different bill from the one Congress passed, raising questions that the eventual law would be unconstitutional. Republicans objected when Democrats proposed passing the missing section separately and sending that to Bush.

If this isn't the most incompetent government in all of history, I don't know what is.

With food prices soaring, it takes some gall to force Americans to pay billions of dollars to millionaire agribusinesses. Yet that's what the latest farm bill would do.

Since the last farm bill was enacted in 2002, the five crops that receive the lion's share of farm subsidies have also enjoyed massive price increases: cotton (105 percent price increase), soybeans (164 percent), corn (169 percent), wheat (256 percent) and rice (281 percent). For consumers, these price increases have caused financial pain domestically and near-riots abroad. For farmers, it's a sunnier story: Total net farm income has leaped 56 percent in just two years, and helped bring the average farm household's income to a record $89,434, and its net worth to $838,875.

During this crop-price boom, continuing to subsidize farmers makes as much sense as paying Apple to make another generation of iPods.

Yet instead of cutting, Congress' answer is to harvest even more farm subsidies. The latest version would increase payment rates for more than a dozen crops and increase conservation subsidies. Although the same farmers already receive massive annual subsidies, plus taxpayer-funded crop insurance, Congress would also layer a new permanent disaster aid program. Expect Congress to declare an emergency any week that it rains - or doesn't rain.

The Senate voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to approve a five-year, $307 billion farm bill, sending it to President Bush for what is expected to be his futile veto.

The 81-to-15 Senate vote, like the 318-to-106 House vote on Wednesday, attracted broad bipartisan support and received far more than the two-thirds that would be needed to override Mr. Bush's veto, should he keep his pledge to wield his pen.

Mr. Bush has said he wants to sharply limit government subsidies to farmers at a time of near-record commodity prices and soaring global demand for grain. Most legislators were not swayed by Mr. Bush's description of the bill as bloated, expensive and packed with "a variety of gimmicks."

Even with the food shortages the farmers must still be having a hard time making ends meet.