Your Opinion: ‘Farm Bill’ includes huge subsidies

Dear Editor:

First, we need to clarify that the “Farm Bill” is really the “Food Stamp Welfare Bill” with a lot of pork thrown in to subsidize huge farming corporations. Seventy-nine percent of the nearly $1 trillion estimated cost of the bill is for nutrition programs.

I liked a comment by the National Review Online. In describing the farm bill they stated that, “bipartisanship means, as it usually does, that Democrats and Republicans have teamed up to mug taxpayers.”

When you hear a politician tell you that the new farm bill reduces spending you have just been given proof that the old saying, “how can you tell when a politician is lying, his lips are moving,” is true

The 10-year estimated cost of the 2002 bill was $451 billion ($582 billion in 2014 dollars.) The 10-year estimated cost of the 2008 bill was $604 billion ($652 billion in 2014 dollars.) It is worth noting that President Bush vetoed the 2008 bill. He claimed that it cost to much and that gimmicks were being used to hide the true cost. Congress overrode his veto. The 10-year estimated cost of the recently passed bill is $956 billion.

Only politicians, and the liberal media, could call a $30 billion dollar annual increase (47percent) over the 2008 bill a reduction/cut.

Lest you worry that small family farms will go out of business because of program cuts you should know that they aren’t the ones getting the majority of the money. According to the EWG Farm Subsidy database, in 2012 over 1,300 farm subsidy recipients received payments of over $1,000,000. Over 10,000 of them received payments over $325,000. From 1995-2012, Dnrc Trust Land Management-Exem, of Helana, MT, received over $53 million. 10 mega farms received over $16 million each during this time period. Sen. Chuck Grassley pushed hard to limit payments to $250,000 per family but the final bill effectively made any caps worthless.

Most of us are not pleased to know that politicians have just approved further indebting our children and grandchildren so that they can spend $100 million to figure out how to get consumers to buy more maple syrup. This is only one example of the pork in the bill.

We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a federal government which is willing to pay any amount to keep itself in power.

Issue-oriented letters to the editor in response to this or about other local topics are welcome. All letters should be limited to 400 words. The author's name must appear with the letter, and the name, address and phone number provided for verification. Letters that cannot be verified by telephone will not be published. Send letters for publication to editor@newstribune.com