Rich Farmers, Yes. Poor hungry, NO

The new farm bill assures relatively rich farmers $956 billion for the next 10 years. Taxpayers pay about 60% of the cost of insurance against low prices for farmers.  Spending on food stamps for the poor and unemployed meanwhile, will be cut $8 billion. 
     Of course, it is good that money is added to the bill to combat fraud in the food stamp and crop insurance programs, but the whole thing is a fraud.

Farm Welfare

We do not have welfare for the poor and unemployed, but we have it for large, rich farmers.

"The new farm bill, which had been mired in partisan gridlock, makes fundamental changes to both nutrition and farm programs. It cuts the food stamp program by $8 billion, and about 850,000 households will lose about $90 in monthly benefits under the change. (Let them eat cake.)

Anti-hunger groups called the food stamp cuts draconian. Feeding America, a coalition of food banks across the county, said the change would result in 34 lost meals per month for the affected households.

The bill does provide a $200 million increase in financing to food banks, though many said the money might not be enough to offset the expected surge in demand for food.

Farm programs were not spared from the cuts in the new bill. The most significant change to farm programs is the elimination of a subsidy known as direct payments. These payments, about $5 billion a year, are paid to farmers whether or not they grow crops, and the issue had become politically toxic over the last several years as farm income has risen to record levels.

The new bill cuts this subsidy and adds some of the money to the government-subsidized crop insurance. The government pays 62 percent of premiums for the $9 billion-a-year insurance program."   NYT 30 jan 2014

The Nanny State?

The FDA is considering phasing out trans fats as already banned by New York City, Philadelphia, and the state of California.  Rush Limbaugh groused that bureaucrats shouldn't regulate what people eat because it's none of their business. The no-nothings are crying about the "nanny state" that takes away freedom.  Whenever I hear the word "freedom" I ask whose freedom are we talking about.  I know that freedom for the pike is often death for the minnow.  The nanny state argument claims that if people want to eat unhealthily, it only harms consumers of hydrogenated oils.  NOT TRUE.  If peoples' diets make them unhealthy it raises the health insurance rates for everyone.  Further, if the people are on Medicare, it raises taxes to support their care. 
     Finally, some people know their weaknesses and call on the state to help them out in moments of weakness.  If they doubt their own resolve, they may favor prohibiting some foods that promise to taste good, but are unhealthy.  Of course, their freedom to be free of temptation is at the expense of those with dietary fortitude.  Alas, not everyone can be free if interests conflict.

Minimum Wage

Your hamburgers are too cheap.  Workers in fast-food restaurants are not paid a living wage.  The minimum wage should be increased to at least $10.  Opponents say that a higher minimum wage will result in higher priced burgers, etc.  Well, isn't that the point? 

Eat More Vegetables

The US Dept of Agriculture has been trying to write new rules to combat obesity in school children by reducing starchy foods and increasing fruits and vegetables in subsidized school lunches. But this ran into a buzz saw of lobbying by potato growers, farm state senators, etc. The proposed rules were changed to accommodate the special interests--including allowing a bit of tomato paste on a pizza to count as a vegie!
Again political campaign contributions corrupt.

Special Interests rule

In January, the USDA proposed new guidelines for school lunches to reduce carbs and sodium to try to reduce obesity in children (One-third of children are overweight.) But, the food industry spent $5.6 million and blocked improvements to the 15 year-old guidelines. The present guidelines say that two tablespoons of tomato paste constitute a serving of vegetables. Well, the salt industry has to eat too!

Farm Subsidies

A new farm subsidy is being proposed by Senators Brown, Ohio, and Thune, S. Dakota, in spite of record high farm income. Current subsidies like many government programs go mostly to the rich. The top 10 percent of direct-payment recipients in 2010 received 59 percent of the money under the program. Those 88,000 people, including farmers, their spouses and absentee landowners, got an average of $29,598.
Here’s why this folly endures. Mr. Thune, a leading voice in favor of deficit reduction, received at least $80,000 in campaign contributions since 2007 from political action committees associated with commodity agriculture, according to data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign spending. Mr. Brown has received $5,500 in PAC contributions from such groups in that period.

Catastrophe-- Part 5 of a series

Lester Brown draws our attention to three factors contributing to a possible catastrophe in world food supply. See Journey to Planet Earth, PBS.
1. World population continues to grow, even with some population planning bright spots in Bangladesh, etc.
2. As income rises in places like China and India, the demand for animal products grows that literally takes bread out of the mouths of the remaining poor.
3. Conversion of food crops (especially corn) to ethanol.
This adds up to higher food prices that we are already seeing, which is particularly ominous for the poor of the world. We are already seeing some failed nation states where inadequate and more costly food is part of the problem—Chad, Somalia, Afghanistan, Sudan, D.R. Congo, and Haiti.