'Corporate Welfare' Triumphs as Farm Bill Fails the Hungry
Under the guise of cutting subsidies, bipartisan bill increases subsidies to major agribusiness
After years of wrangling, the U.S. Senate voted 68-32 Tuesday in favor of a farm bill currently poised to be signed by President Obama.
Though the bill has some positive features including new conservation requirements for farm businesses that collect crop insurance subsidies and more funding for local and organic farmers, critics say the bad far outweighs the good.
Though not as drastic as the $40 billion in food stamp cuts that House Republicans had initially demanded, the final bill cuts food stamps or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits by $8.7 billion over ten years.
Putting that figure in context, MSNBC's Ned Resnikoff writes, "It's official: 850,000 households across the country are set to lose an average of $90 per month in food stamp benefits."
Following news of the passage, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said he was "very disappointed" about the SNAP cuts, adding that it is "both morally and economically wrong to cut assistance to families in a very difficult economy."
"Our latest report shows that SNAP is the only defense against the wolves of hunger for 1.2 million jobless families," said Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund, reacting to passage of the bill. "With record numbers of children in poverty, Congress should be launching a war on child poverty and strengthening the safety net for children including SNAP."
"It is shameful that Congress continues to treat poor Americans like second class citizens by cutting supports they desperately need," she added.
In contrast to the assistance stripped from struggling families, as Environmental Work Group (EWG) reports, the final iteration of the farm bill hands "largely unlimited subsidies" to the largest and most successful farm operations "at the expense of family farmers and the environment."
Under the guise of cutting subsidies by repealing unpopular direct cash payments to farmers, the bill instead increases crop insurance subsidies by nearly $6 billion. Further, the final bill strips a provision that limited payouts to farmers that made over $750,000 in income.
As reporter David Dayen notes in the New Republic, by "referring to beneficiaries as 'farmers,' [the bill] underplays how giant agribusinesses really benefit from subsidized crop insurance."
He adds that by stripping the limits on payouts, "the richest businesses reap the most benefits" from the bill.
Dayen continues:
So the farm bill, far from "reforming" the process of well-heeled agribusinesses living off corporate welfare, actually locks that support in place through misdirection. It's easier to denounce a farmer getting paid not to plant their field than to decry an overly generous insurance payout. Congress, particularly a Senate that over-represents rural agricultural states, knows well how to hide the ball in this fashion, keeping the focus on undeserving food stamp recipients rather than undeserving agribusinesses.
_____________________
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
After years of wrangling, the U.S. Senate voted 68-32 Tuesday in favor of a farm bill currently poised to be signed by President Obama.
Though the bill has some positive features including new conservation requirements for farm businesses that collect crop insurance subsidies and more funding for local and organic farmers, critics say the bad far outweighs the good.
Though not as drastic as the $40 billion in food stamp cuts that House Republicans had initially demanded, the final bill cuts food stamps or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits by $8.7 billion over ten years.
Putting that figure in context, MSNBC's Ned Resnikoff writes, "It's official: 850,000 households across the country are set to lose an average of $90 per month in food stamp benefits."
Following news of the passage, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said he was "very disappointed" about the SNAP cuts, adding that it is "both morally and economically wrong to cut assistance to families in a very difficult economy."
"Our latest report shows that SNAP is the only defense against the wolves of hunger for 1.2 million jobless families," said Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund, reacting to passage of the bill. "With record numbers of children in poverty, Congress should be launching a war on child poverty and strengthening the safety net for children including SNAP."
"It is shameful that Congress continues to treat poor Americans like second class citizens by cutting supports they desperately need," she added.
In contrast to the assistance stripped from struggling families, as Environmental Work Group (EWG) reports, the final iteration of the farm bill hands "largely unlimited subsidies" to the largest and most successful farm operations "at the expense of family farmers and the environment."
Under the guise of cutting subsidies by repealing unpopular direct cash payments to farmers, the bill instead increases crop insurance subsidies by nearly $6 billion. Further, the final bill strips a provision that limited payouts to farmers that made over $750,000 in income.
As reporter David Dayen notes in the New Republic, by "referring to beneficiaries as 'farmers,' [the bill] underplays how giant agribusinesses really benefit from subsidized crop insurance."
He adds that by stripping the limits on payouts, "the richest businesses reap the most benefits" from the bill.
Dayen continues:
So the farm bill, far from "reforming" the process of well-heeled agribusinesses living off corporate welfare, actually locks that support in place through misdirection. It's easier to denounce a farmer getting paid not to plant their field than to decry an overly generous insurance payout. Congress, particularly a Senate that over-represents rural agricultural states, knows well how to hide the ball in this fashion, keeping the focus on undeserving food stamp recipients rather than undeserving agribusinesses.
_____________________
After years of wrangling, the U.S. Senate voted 68-32 Tuesday in favor of a farm bill currently poised to be signed by President Obama.
Though the bill has some positive features including new conservation requirements for farm businesses that collect crop insurance subsidies and more funding for local and organic farmers, critics say the bad far outweighs the good.
Though not as drastic as the $40 billion in food stamp cuts that House Republicans had initially demanded, the final bill cuts food stamps or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits by $8.7 billion over ten years.
Putting that figure in context, MSNBC's Ned Resnikoff writes, "It's official: 850,000 households across the country are set to lose an average of $90 per month in food stamp benefits."
Following news of the passage, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said he was "very disappointed" about the SNAP cuts, adding that it is "both morally and economically wrong to cut assistance to families in a very difficult economy."
"Our latest report shows that SNAP is the only defense against the wolves of hunger for 1.2 million jobless families," said Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund, reacting to passage of the bill. "With record numbers of children in poverty, Congress should be launching a war on child poverty and strengthening the safety net for children including SNAP."
"It is shameful that Congress continues to treat poor Americans like second class citizens by cutting supports they desperately need," she added.
In contrast to the assistance stripped from struggling families, as Environmental Work Group (EWG) reports, the final iteration of the farm bill hands "largely unlimited subsidies" to the largest and most successful farm operations "at the expense of family farmers and the environment."
Under the guise of cutting subsidies by repealing unpopular direct cash payments to farmers, the bill instead increases crop insurance subsidies by nearly $6 billion. Further, the final bill strips a provision that limited payouts to farmers that made over $750,000 in income.
As reporter David Dayen notes in the New Republic, by "referring to beneficiaries as 'farmers,' [the bill] underplays how giant agribusinesses really benefit from subsidized crop insurance."
He adds that by stripping the limits on payouts, "the richest businesses reap the most benefits" from the bill.
Dayen continues:
So the farm bill, far from "reforming" the process of well-heeled agribusinesses living off corporate welfare, actually locks that support in place through misdirection. It's easier to denounce a farmer getting paid not to plant their field than to decry an overly generous insurance payout. Congress, particularly a Senate that over-represents rural agricultural states, knows well how to hide the ball in this fashion, keeping the focus on undeserving food stamp recipients rather than undeserving agribusinesses.
_____________________