Voice of Reason: We’re throwing too much welfare money at farmers
Since 1996, when the Republican-sponsored welfare reform bill went into effect, welfare roles have been cut in half, to only 5.3 million, and the proportion of children in poverty has declined to the lowest level in two decades.
It’s hard to argue with results and I have to give credit where credit is due. Now you won’t hear me say this often, but the Republicans were actually right about something.
Efforts toward further welfare reform, based on recommendations of President Bush, were passed by the House on Thursday. This new bill would, among other things, increase the number of hours a week a person on welfare will be required to work from 30 to 40.
The fact that the Republicans in general and President Bush in particular are in favor of welfare reform is nothing new. For years Republicans have been extolling the virtues of self-reliance and hard work, believing it is not the obligation of the taxpayers to support someone who will not work to support himself.
This is why I was initially shocked to see the enthusiastic support given by President Bush and the majority of Republicans (and some Democrats) to the farm bill signed into law last Monday. I am surprised because this bill, which will cost taxpayers a hefty $190 billion, increases agriculture subsidies (that’s a nice way of saying welfare to farmers) close to 80 percent.
Critics of the bill, including Sen. Fred Thompson, rightly say this bill takes our country back to the FDR style of government supports needed during the Depression and that will make farmers increasingly dependent on government handouts. And this dependence is exactly what Congressional Republicans sought to wean farmers from when they passed, and President Clinton signed, 1996’s Freedom to Farm Act, which drastically cut subsidies.
In addition to totally reversing the Freedom to Farm Act and then some, Sen. Thompson says this year’s bill not only defies the basic laws of economics, but allows for a disproportionate share of these subsidies to larger farms.
What this means is the lion’s share of these subsidies are not going to small, struggling family farms, but to the huge, mega-farms. Consider these statistics from the Environmental Working Group published last week in The Tennessean: “In Tennessee, for example, the top 1 percent of farm subsidy recipients received 43 percent all the payments from 1996 to 2001, amounting to $410,439 per farmer. The top 20 percent received 93 percent of all payments, or $43,787 each.
It’s welfare for the rich! I love it!
We pay farmers NOT to grow certain crops. Getting paid not to work, what a deal. And here’s the best part: We, the taxpayers, get to pay twice for this privilege – once in the form of supports, and again in higher prices at the grocery store which are the result of the supports.
So, in summary, the President believes we need to get those lazy welfare moms off the dole and make them stand on their own two feet, while it’s OK, and even encouraged, to throw welfare money at rich farmers so they won’t have to face foreign competition like just about every other business in our country’s capitalistic economy. And all this from a professed free-trader and the biggest proponent of capitalism you’ll ever meet.
Though illogical considering his economic beliefs, it’s easy to understand why he’s supporting the agriculture subsidies and other measures like the imposition of a 30 percent tariff on imported steel. It’s all about elections.
With the farm bill he pleased the country’s powerful farm lobbies, including those in Missouri, Iowa and South Dakota – which all have close senate elections come November. With the steel tariffs, he hopes to shore up re-election votes in the steel producing states of Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia.
Aren’t special interests great?
(Will Stewart is a reporter for the Standard. He can be reached at 473-2191.)