Via Instapundit, Joshua Claybourn is cynical and pessimistic about the prospects for cutting farm subsidies. While I'm not optimistic, his pessimism, at least as stated, seems unjustified on two counts.

First, not to use an argument from non-authority, but quoting Atrios is hardly likely to be persuasive to any thinking person....

But more to the point, Atrios' "argument" (such as it is) is flaccid:

...I predict that the most likely result of this attempt to cut farm spending is precisely what happened in 2002 when Bush also proposed cutting farm subsidies. A bill will pass which significantly increases farm subsidies, at which point Bush will sign it and praise it.

Well, not to sound too trite, but that was then, and this is now. 2002 was an election year, in which Congress was up for grabs, and the president still had a reelection of his own coming up. He also had less support in both houses of Congress than he does today.

It appears to me that the president, having been reelected and having to worry no more about having to win another election, has decided to cut back on the "compassionate conservatism" (for which read standard liberalism and government growth, but not quite as fast) and try to make up for past sins in his second term (on a number of fronts, not just farm subsidies). I suppose it's possible that he'll end up signing and praising an increase in agriwelfare, but the politics of it this year make it seem unlikely. He may not get what he wants, but I'm guessing that he'll at least threaten a veto to attempt to, and if he doesn't, he won't praise it this time.

You mustn't restrict yourself to 2002. This is a show that's been played out every year under Bush.

You still seem to make no distinction between first and second term. It's an important one, and it's already starting to show.

I view this as nothing more than a marker. Bush puts it up thinking that it would be a good thing to do on principle, but believing that likely it will be killed. But if it's killed, then the congress is going to have to find somebody else's ox to gore.

But there is a chance that it will pass. The farm constituency lost Daschle in the Senate. Remember that the Senate was in Dem hands when the original passed. As I recall the battle on the floor, Daschle put on a neverending debate about the subject, holding up other Senate work until the GOP caved and gave him what he wanted. It didn't help that the GOP was divided on the issue anyway.

Rand,

It wasn't just an election. Bush was trying to garner votes for authority to fight Saddam Hussein. He didn't want to get bogged down in regular politics and was extremely focused in moving the question of regime change in Iraq. Bush signed a lot of bills that year just to get them out of the way. Not that I appreciate that strategy, but it was fairly apparent at the time.