September, 12 2013, 12:20pm EDT

Groups, Lawmakers Demand Cuts to Ag Subsidies, Deliver Petitions from 278,000 Citizens, 1,000 Small Farmers
Bipartisan Lawmakers, Unlikely Allies Join for Capitol Hill Press Conference
WASHINGTON
Today, U.S. PIRG joined Representatives Ron Kind (D-WI) and Tom Petri (R-WI), the daughter of a Maryland small farmer, and groups from across the political spectrum to deliver the latest of 278,000 public petitions and 1,000 letters from small farmers calling on Congress to end subsidies to large agribusinesses. These subsidies, which send more than 1 billion dollars a year to crops that end up in junk food ingredients like high-fructose corn syrup, are part of the Farm Bill -- which will expire at the end of the month if Congress doesn't act.
Groups speaking at the event included the National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Environmental Working Group, and the R Street Institute.
"Thousands of Americans, lawmakers from both parties, and groups from across the political spectrum all agree that it's time to end wasteful handouts to Big Ag in the Farm Bill," said U.S. PIRG Tax and Budget Advocate Dan Smith. "Almost anything would be a better use of our tax dollars than sending checks to giant, profitable agribusinesses."
"Farmers and taxpayers across the entire political spectrum know that our agriculture subsidy programs need to be overhauled," said Congressman. Kind. "As the representative of one of the largest agricultural districts in the country, I'm committed to working in a bipartisan fashion to bring real reform to American farm policy so that taxpayers and family farmers are put ahead of big agribusiness."
"Currently, the federal government subsidizes roughly 62% of farmers' crop insurance premiums at a cost of $9 billion a year, but America's small farmers receive only 27% of the subsidies," said Congressman Petri. "That doesn't seem right to me. We need to put in place reforms that keep a safety net in place for farmers who truly need assistance, but also ensures the program is not exploited--which ends up costing taxpayers a lot of money. I'm glad to be a part of this bipartisan effort to make sensible reforms to the crop insurance program."
Since 1995, $292 billion has been spent on agricultural subsidies, with three-quarters of the subsidies going to just four percent of farmers. Over 60 percent of farmers don't receive any subsidies. Furthermore, these subsidies mainly support just a few commodity crops, including corn and soybeans.
Among other uses, food manufacturers process corn and soy crops into additives like high-fructose corn syrup. U.S. PIRG research has found that over $1 billion a year in subsidies ends up going to four common junk food additives - corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch, and soy oils.
"I am disappointed in how our current food system gives large subsidies to giant agribusinesses that don't need the money, said Sophia Maravell, the daughter of a small organic farmer and Education Director of Brickyard Educational Farm in Potomac, Maryland. "These subsidy programs may help agribusiness giants like Cargill and Monsanto, but they do little for small family farms like mine."
At the press conference U.S. PIRG's Dan Smith urged Congress to make the following reforms in the final Farm Bill:
End the nearly $5 billion per year "Direct Payments" program, which is known for handing out checks to landowners who don't even farm and has long been the poster child for wasteful agricultural subsidies. If Congress fails to pass a Farm Bill by the September deadline, this wasteful program should not be part of any extension of the current law.
Cut crop insurance subsidies for the wealthiest agribusinesses. The Senate took a positive first step by approving the bipartisan amendment from Senators Durbin and Coburn to reduce subsidies going to farmers making more than $750,000. This limit should be strengthened, but at the minimum it should be kept in the final bill.
Enact common sense caps on the crop insurance program so that no agribusiness can receive million dollar checks.
"It could not be clearer where the public stands on handouts to big agribusiness. Lawmakers should stand with small farmers and ordinary taxpayers by finally putting an end to these wasteful subsidies," concluded Smith.
U.S. PIRG, the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), stands up to powerful special interests on behalf of the American public, working to win concrete results for our health and our well-being. With a strong network of researchers, advocates, organizers and students in state capitols across the country, we take on the special interests on issues, such as product safety,political corruption, prescription drugs and voting rights,where these interests stand in the way of reform and progress.
LATEST NEWS
Billionaire Palantir Co-Founder Pushes Return of Public Hangings as Part of 'Masculine Leadership' Initiative
"Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age," said one critic in response.
Dec 07, 2025
Venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale, a co-founder of data platform company Palantir, is calling for the return of public hangings as part of a broader push to restore what he describes as "masculine leadership" to the US.
In a statement posted on X Friday, Lonsdale said that he supported changing the so-called "three strikes" anti-crime law to ensure that anyone who is convicted of three violent crimes gets publicly executed, rather than simply sent to prison for life.
"If I’m in charge later, we won’t just have a three strikes law," he wrote. "We will quickly try and hang men after three violent crimes. And yes, we will do it in public to deter others."
Lonsdale then added that "our society needs balance," and said that "it's time to bring back masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable."
Lonsdale's views on public hangings being necessary to restore "masculine leadership" drew swift criticism.
Gil Durán, a journalist who documents the increasingly authoritarian politics of Silicon Valley in his newsletter "The Nerd Reich," argued in a Saturday post that Lonsdale's call for public hangings showed that US tech elites are "entering a more dangerous and desperate phase of radicalization."
"For months, Peter Thiel guru Curtis Yarvin has been squawking about the need for more severe measures to cement Trump's authoritarian rule," Durán explained. "Peter Thiel is ranting about the Antichrist in a global tour. And now Lonsdale—a Thiel protégé—is fantasizing about a future in which he will have the power to unleash state violence at mass scale."
Taulby Edmondson, an adjunct professor of history, religion, and culture at Virginia Tech, wrote in a post on Bluesky that the rhetoric Lonsdale uses to justify the return of public hangings has even darker intonations than calls for state-backed violence.
"A point of nuance here: 'masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable' is how lynch mobs are described, not state-sanctioned executions," he observed.
Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll argued that Lonsdale's remarks were symbolic of a kind of performative masculinity that has infected US culture.
"Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age," he wrote.
Tech entrepreneur Anil Dash warned Lonsdale that his call for public hangings could have unintended consequences for members of the Silicon Valley elite.
"Well, Joe, Mark Zuckerberg has sole control over Facebook, which directly enabled the Rohingya genocide," he wrote. "So let’s have the conversation."
And Columbia Journalism School professor Bill Grueskin noted that Lonsdale has been a major backer of the University of Austin, an unaccredited liberal arts college that has been pitched as an alternative to left-wing university education with the goal of preparing "thoughtful and ethical innovators, builders, leaders, public servants and citizens through open inquiry and civil discourse."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hegseth Defends Boat Bombings as New Details Further Undermine Administration's Justifications
The boat targeted in the infamous September 2 "double-tap" strike was not even headed for the US, Adm. Frank Bradley revealed to lawmakers.
Dec 07, 2025
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday defended the Trump administration's policy of bombing suspected drug-trafficking vessels even as new details further undermined the administration's stated justifications for the policy.
According to the Guardian, Hegseth told a gathering at the Ronald Reagan presidential library that the boat bombings, which so far have killed at least 87 people, are necessary to protect Americans from illegal drugs being shipped to the US.
"If you’re working for a designated terrorist organization and you bring drugs to this country in a boat, we will find you and we will sink you," Hegseth said. "Let there be no doubt about it."
However, leaked details about a classified briefing delivered to lawmakers last week by Adm. Frank Bradley about a September 2 boat strike cast new doubts on Hegseth's justifications.
CNN reported on Friday that Bradley told lawmakers that the boat taken out by the September 2 attack was not even headed toward the US, but was going "to link up with another, larger vessel that was bound for Suriname," a small nation in the northeast of South America.
While Bradley acknowledged that the boat was not heading toward the US, he told lawmakers that the strike on it was justified because the drugs it was carrying could have theoretically wound up in the US at some point.
Additionally, NBC News reported on Saturday that Bradley told lawmakers that Hegseth had ordered all 11 men who were on the boat targeted by the September 2 strike to be killed because "they were on an internal list of narco-terrorists who US intelligence and military officials determined could be lethally targeted."
This is relevant because the US military launched a second strike during the September 2 operation to kill two men who had survived the initial strike on their vessel, which many legal experts consider to be either a war crime or an act of murder under domestic law.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, watched video of the September 2 double-tap attack last week, and he described the footage as “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.”
“Any American who sees the video that I saw will see its military attacking shipwrecked sailors,” Himes explained. “Now, there’s a whole set of contextual items that the admiral explained. Yes, they were carrying drugs. They were not in position to continue their mission in any way... People will someday see this video and they will see that that video shows, if you don’t have the broader context, an attack on shipwrecked sailors.”
While there has been much discussion about the legality of the September 2 double-tap strike in recent days, some critics have warned that fixating on this particular aspect of the administration's policy risks taking the focus off the illegality of the boat-bombing campaign as a whole.
Daphne Eviatar, director for security and human rights for Amnesty International USA, said on Friday that the entire boat-bombing campaign has been "illegal under both domestic and international law."
"All of them constitute murder because none of the victims, whether or not they were smuggling illegal narcotics, posed an imminent threat to life," she said. "Congress must take action now to stop the US military from murdering more people in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Leaked Memo Shows Pam Bondi Wants List of 'Domestic Terrorism' Groups Who Express 'Anti-American Sentiment'
"Millions of Americans like you and I could be the target," warned journalist Ken Klippenstein of the new memo.
Dec 07, 2025
A leaked memo written by US Attorney General Pam Bondi directs the Department of Justice to compile a list of potential "domestic terrorism" organizations that espouse "extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment."
The memo, which was obtained by journalist Ken Klippenstein, expands upon National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), a directive signed by President Donald Trump in late September that demanded a "national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts."
The new Bondi memo instructs law enforcement agencies to refer "suspected" domestic terrorism cases to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), which will then undertake an "exhaustive investigation contemplated by NSPM-7" that will incorporate "a focused strategy to root out all culpable participants—including organizers and funders—in all domestic terrorism activities."
The memo identifies the "domestic terrorism threat" as organizations that use "violence or the threat of violence" to advance political goals such as "opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality."
Commenting on the significance of the memo, Klippenstein criticized mainstream media organizations for largely ignoring the implications of NSPM-7, which was drafted and signed in the wake of the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
"For months, major media outlets have largely blown off the story of NSPM-7, thinking it was all just Trump bluster and too crazy to be serious," he wrote. "But a memo like this one shows you that the administration is absolutely taking this seriously—even if the media are not—and is actively working to operationalize NSPM-7."
Klippenstein also warned that NSPM-7 appeared to be the start of a new "war on terrorism," but "only this time, millions of Americans like you and I could be the target."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


