Hunger Games, U.S.A.
By PAUL KRUGMAN, NYT
Something terrible has happened to the soul of the Republican Party. We’ve gone beyond bad economic doctrine. We’ve even gone beyond selfishness and special interests. At this point we’re talking about a state of mind that takes positive glee in inflicting further suffering on the already miserable.
The occasion for these observations is, as you may have guessed, the monstrous farm bill the House passed last week.
For decades, farm bills have had two major pieces. One piece offers subsidies to farmers; the other offers nutritional aid to Americans in distress, mainly in the form of food stamps (these days officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP).
Long ago, when subsidies helped many poor farmers, you could defend the whole package as a form of support for those in need. Over the years, however, the two pieces diverged. Farm subsidies became a fraud-ridden program that mainly benefits corporations and wealthy individuals. Meanwhile food stamps became a crucial part of the social safety net.
(More here.)
Something terrible has happened to the soul of the Republican Party. We’ve gone beyond bad economic doctrine. We’ve even gone beyond selfishness and special interests. At this point we’re talking about a state of mind that takes positive glee in inflicting further suffering on the already miserable.
The occasion for these observations is, as you may have guessed, the monstrous farm bill the House passed last week.
For decades, farm bills have had two major pieces. One piece offers subsidies to farmers; the other offers nutritional aid to Americans in distress, mainly in the form of food stamps (these days officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP).
Long ago, when subsidies helped many poor farmers, you could defend the whole package as a form of support for those in need. Over the years, however, the two pieces diverged. Farm subsidies became a fraud-ridden program that mainly benefits corporations and wealthy individuals. Meanwhile food stamps became a crucial part of the social safety net.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
3 Comments:
In Tom's Free Press OpEd concerning the George W. Bush legacy, one aspect that was not featured is the death of one of his campaign concepts --- "Compassionate Conservativism".
Today's GOP has rejected compassion ... and instead affirmed "Protectionism".
And the use of the word "affirm" is a pun, as one of the amendments that failed to be approved on the failed FARRM bill was Ron Kind's (D-WI) Amendment 47 to H R 1947, which is nearly identical to H R 1995, Assisting Family Farmers through Insurance Reform Measures (AFFIRM) Act.
The amendment reforms the federal crop insurance program to establish means testing and payment limits for crop insurance subsidies. It also requires public disclosure of subsidy recipients, requires that participating private crop insurance companies pay a portion of the costs associated with administering and operating crop insurance policies, and lowers the federally guaranteed rate of return for crop insurance companies from 14 percent to 12 percent.
CBO estimates that prohibiting farmers from linking their revenue insurance claims to the price at harvest (rather than the price they expected to earn when they planted in the spring) would save taxpayers almost $8 billion over ten years.
Lowering the cap on subsidies to insurance companies from $1.3 billon a year to $900 million a year and only guaranteeing farmers a 12 percent rate of return (down from 14 percent) would save $5.3 billion over ten years.
It failed 208-217 ... voting against it included Steven Fincher, the Bible-quoting subsidized cotton, corn, soybean and wheat farmer and Congressman did.
Let see the subsidy for cotton goes from 88% to 99% in the new farm bill ... corn from 45% to 85% ... soybean from 48% to 79% and wheat from 56% to 96%.
We can understand Fincher's self-protecting vote, what about the others that would include leaders like Eric Cantor, Ag Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (and plenty of other Ag committee members : Collin Peterson, Tim Walz, Rick Nolan, Bob Goodlatte, Steve King, etc.) but why would the "Queen of the TEA Party" Michele Bachmann vote against it ? Oh, yeah, that's right, she has that family farm that gets subsidies.
I think it is fine to work to reduce government involvement in our food production, especially things like the Grain Embargo (remember Carter?). It would also be a good idea to work to reduce the number of people who depend upon the government for their food (SNAP). Those on the left side of the aisle could improve their credibility if they would scream and wail about both food producers and those who cannot feed themselves.
We are called to feed the hungry and at the same time, is it compassionate to get people hooked on the narcotic of food stamps? Is it compassionate to create dependency on Washington? When Washington talks about being compassionate, all they are really talking about is taking one person's money and giving it to another (even Bill Clinton understood this). I suppose it is a great way to obtain votes.
If we can reduce the size of government involvement in farming all the better, I challenge those on the left side of the aisle to be as concerned with Washington becoming the total provider for more and more our citizens (food, housing, healthcare, transportation, phones...)
Post a Comment
<< Home