Global Development: Views from the Center

I'll agree in giving kudos for the veto, however, I question whether it was just the cost of the subsidies, or the whole price tag that was the driving cause of the veto.

According to the AP article:

"About two-thirds of the bill would pay for nutrition programs such as food stamps and emergency food aid for the needy. An additional $40 billion is for farm subsidies while almost $30 billion would go to farmers to idle their land and to other environmental programs."

So if the $40 billion in subsidies of the $300 billion farm bill (basically just over 13%) had been cut or reduced, would the president have allowed it to pass?

I think the veto is a good step because of the need to drastically reform our subsidies program, which I applaud the President for pointing out. One could argue, however, that we need to direct any money saved from cutting subsidies right back into nutrition and rural development programs, not to mention the need to greatly increase our funding for agriculture in developing countries. The veto shouldn’t have come from the cost of the bill, but from the elements that make it such a flawed piece of legislation.

So my question to the President: Why the veto? Was it principal, or just the price tag?