SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The Farm Bill that is expected to pass the U.S. House this week explains income inequality in America.
The Republican-sponsored proposal slashes food stamps for poor children and pads farm subsidies for wealthy agri-businessmen.
This all violates America's cherished ideal of equal opportunity. Americans strive to achieve believing they have the same chance at success as everyone else and, more importantly, that the egalitarian American system will provide their children with a level playing field on which to attain their full potential. Americans believe their government should maintain that level field. But it does not. Not when poor students are denied access to low-interest college loans while Washington charges Wall Street virtually no interest. Not when the House farm bill feeds the rich and starves the poor.
Republican Congressman Stephen Fincher of Frog Jump, Tenn., is the ugly face of the feed-the-rich public policy. He is a seventh generation millionaire agri-businessman. He raked in $3.5 million in federal farm subsidies from 1999 to 2012. That averages out to $269,000 a year in farm welfare. It makes him one of the largest farm welfare recipients in Tennessee history as well as among members of Congress.
This politician, who thrived on the government dole, raking in $738 a day in farm welfare over the past 13 years, is among the loudest advocates for increasing subsidies to agribusiness by about $10 billion and slashing food stamps by $20 billion.
That would take food from 2 million poor people. They get an average of $133 a month in food stamps. That's less than $5 a day for the poor -- not the $738 a day that Fincher got.
Fincher justified taking food out of the mouths of poor people by quoting the Bible, 2 Thessalonians 3:10, to be specific: "For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat."
Citing that verse shows a frightening level of cluelessness. First, Fincher took it out of context. It was intended as an admonishment of those who'd stopped working in anticipation of the Second Coming, not as a castigation of generic non-workers.
Second, 49 percent of those receiving food stamps are children. Would Fincher have five-year-olds work for their supper? How about infants?
Finally, the food stamp program encourages work, and the number of recipients who do tripled in the first decade of the century.
Among the working poor are Walmart employees. Generally, to qualify for food stamps, a family can't earn more than 130 percent of poverty level, which would be $25,000 for a family of three. A typical Walmart worker earning $8.81 an hour, slightly more than minimum wage, receives $15,576 a year.
An analysis by the Democratic staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce found that such low wages harm families and burden taxpayers. Government benefit programs -- such as food stamps -- enable Walmart's low wage workers to barely scrape by, the report says.
Using data from Wisconsin's Medicaid program, the staff determined that the average Walmart Supercenter there costs taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.7 million each year. That's for programs like Medicaid and food stamps.
The report also notes: "Rising income inequality and wage stagnation threaten the future of America's middle class. While corporate profits break records, the share of national income going to workers' wages has reached record lows."
Walmart provides the perfect example of that. The corporation made $17 billion last year, while paying its workers poverty wages. As Walmart workers use government programs to get by, the six Walmart heirs now have more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined. Between 2007 and 2010 the wealth of the six richest Walmart heirs rose from $73 billion to $90 billion while the wealth of the average American declined from $126,000 to $77,000.
This results from government policy. The government doesn't require Walmart to pay a living wage. Instead, the government uses taxpayer dollars to minimally subsidize low-paid Walmart workers while cutting taxes on the wealthy Walmart heirs.
The government subsidizes Walmart the way it does millionaire farmers like Fincher. Though low-income workers receive the food stamps, essentially that government aid is welfare for Walmart. A food stamp applicant must prove poverty to qualify for government aid. But not big business. Not agri-business.
The number of food stamp recipients increased dramatically since 2008 because of the great recession, an event caused by reckless gambling on Wall Street. House Republican policy calls for the victims of the recession to suffer and the perpetrators to continue receiving low interest federal loans.
This policy, this funneling of money to the top, increases inequality and decreases opportunity. A child who goes to school hungry, for example, has a very hard time learning.
Universal Studios is among the corporations that have institutionalized inequity. At its parks, middle-class parents and their children wait for hours for entrance to attractions, but the wealthy and their scions simply cut in line. The children of the wealthy don't have to wait. Universal facilitates this with expensive VIP tickets that entitle rich children to park privileges. The VIP package includes hand sanitizer in case a rich kid accidentally touches a "regular Joe" kid, as Universal called them. Also, VIP families get exclusive breakfast and lunch service.
America feeds the rich. Equal opportunity is dead.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
The Farm Bill that is expected to pass the U.S. House this week explains income inequality in America.
The Republican-sponsored proposal slashes food stamps for poor children and pads farm subsidies for wealthy agri-businessmen.
This all violates America's cherished ideal of equal opportunity. Americans strive to achieve believing they have the same chance at success as everyone else and, more importantly, that the egalitarian American system will provide their children with a level playing field on which to attain their full potential. Americans believe their government should maintain that level field. But it does not. Not when poor students are denied access to low-interest college loans while Washington charges Wall Street virtually no interest. Not when the House farm bill feeds the rich and starves the poor.
Republican Congressman Stephen Fincher of Frog Jump, Tenn., is the ugly face of the feed-the-rich public policy. He is a seventh generation millionaire agri-businessman. He raked in $3.5 million in federal farm subsidies from 1999 to 2012. That averages out to $269,000 a year in farm welfare. It makes him one of the largest farm welfare recipients in Tennessee history as well as among members of Congress.
This politician, who thrived on the government dole, raking in $738 a day in farm welfare over the past 13 years, is among the loudest advocates for increasing subsidies to agribusiness by about $10 billion and slashing food stamps by $20 billion.
That would take food from 2 million poor people. They get an average of $133 a month in food stamps. That's less than $5 a day for the poor -- not the $738 a day that Fincher got.
Fincher justified taking food out of the mouths of poor people by quoting the Bible, 2 Thessalonians 3:10, to be specific: "For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat."
Citing that verse shows a frightening level of cluelessness. First, Fincher took it out of context. It was intended as an admonishment of those who'd stopped working in anticipation of the Second Coming, not as a castigation of generic non-workers.
Second, 49 percent of those receiving food stamps are children. Would Fincher have five-year-olds work for their supper? How about infants?
Finally, the food stamp program encourages work, and the number of recipients who do tripled in the first decade of the century.
Among the working poor are Walmart employees. Generally, to qualify for food stamps, a family can't earn more than 130 percent of poverty level, which would be $25,000 for a family of three. A typical Walmart worker earning $8.81 an hour, slightly more than minimum wage, receives $15,576 a year.
An analysis by the Democratic staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce found that such low wages harm families and burden taxpayers. Government benefit programs -- such as food stamps -- enable Walmart's low wage workers to barely scrape by, the report says.
Using data from Wisconsin's Medicaid program, the staff determined that the average Walmart Supercenter there costs taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.7 million each year. That's for programs like Medicaid and food stamps.
The report also notes: "Rising income inequality and wage stagnation threaten the future of America's middle class. While corporate profits break records, the share of national income going to workers' wages has reached record lows."
Walmart provides the perfect example of that. The corporation made $17 billion last year, while paying its workers poverty wages. As Walmart workers use government programs to get by, the six Walmart heirs now have more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined. Between 2007 and 2010 the wealth of the six richest Walmart heirs rose from $73 billion to $90 billion while the wealth of the average American declined from $126,000 to $77,000.
This results from government policy. The government doesn't require Walmart to pay a living wage. Instead, the government uses taxpayer dollars to minimally subsidize low-paid Walmart workers while cutting taxes on the wealthy Walmart heirs.
The government subsidizes Walmart the way it does millionaire farmers like Fincher. Though low-income workers receive the food stamps, essentially that government aid is welfare for Walmart. A food stamp applicant must prove poverty to qualify for government aid. But not big business. Not agri-business.
The number of food stamp recipients increased dramatically since 2008 because of the great recession, an event caused by reckless gambling on Wall Street. House Republican policy calls for the victims of the recession to suffer and the perpetrators to continue receiving low interest federal loans.
This policy, this funneling of money to the top, increases inequality and decreases opportunity. A child who goes to school hungry, for example, has a very hard time learning.
Universal Studios is among the corporations that have institutionalized inequity. At its parks, middle-class parents and their children wait for hours for entrance to attractions, but the wealthy and their scions simply cut in line. The children of the wealthy don't have to wait. Universal facilitates this with expensive VIP tickets that entitle rich children to park privileges. The VIP package includes hand sanitizer in case a rich kid accidentally touches a "regular Joe" kid, as Universal called them. Also, VIP families get exclusive breakfast and lunch service.
America feeds the rich. Equal opportunity is dead.
The Farm Bill that is expected to pass the U.S. House this week explains income inequality in America.
The Republican-sponsored proposal slashes food stamps for poor children and pads farm subsidies for wealthy agri-businessmen.
This all violates America's cherished ideal of equal opportunity. Americans strive to achieve believing they have the same chance at success as everyone else and, more importantly, that the egalitarian American system will provide their children with a level playing field on which to attain their full potential. Americans believe their government should maintain that level field. But it does not. Not when poor students are denied access to low-interest college loans while Washington charges Wall Street virtually no interest. Not when the House farm bill feeds the rich and starves the poor.
Republican Congressman Stephen Fincher of Frog Jump, Tenn., is the ugly face of the feed-the-rich public policy. He is a seventh generation millionaire agri-businessman. He raked in $3.5 million in federal farm subsidies from 1999 to 2012. That averages out to $269,000 a year in farm welfare. It makes him one of the largest farm welfare recipients in Tennessee history as well as among members of Congress.
This politician, who thrived on the government dole, raking in $738 a day in farm welfare over the past 13 years, is among the loudest advocates for increasing subsidies to agribusiness by about $10 billion and slashing food stamps by $20 billion.
That would take food from 2 million poor people. They get an average of $133 a month in food stamps. That's less than $5 a day for the poor -- not the $738 a day that Fincher got.
Fincher justified taking food out of the mouths of poor people by quoting the Bible, 2 Thessalonians 3:10, to be specific: "For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat."
Citing that verse shows a frightening level of cluelessness. First, Fincher took it out of context. It was intended as an admonishment of those who'd stopped working in anticipation of the Second Coming, not as a castigation of generic non-workers.
Second, 49 percent of those receiving food stamps are children. Would Fincher have five-year-olds work for their supper? How about infants?
Finally, the food stamp program encourages work, and the number of recipients who do tripled in the first decade of the century.
Among the working poor are Walmart employees. Generally, to qualify for food stamps, a family can't earn more than 130 percent of poverty level, which would be $25,000 for a family of three. A typical Walmart worker earning $8.81 an hour, slightly more than minimum wage, receives $15,576 a year.
An analysis by the Democratic staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce found that such low wages harm families and burden taxpayers. Government benefit programs -- such as food stamps -- enable Walmart's low wage workers to barely scrape by, the report says.
Using data from Wisconsin's Medicaid program, the staff determined that the average Walmart Supercenter there costs taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.7 million each year. That's for programs like Medicaid and food stamps.
The report also notes: "Rising income inequality and wage stagnation threaten the future of America's middle class. While corporate profits break records, the share of national income going to workers' wages has reached record lows."
Walmart provides the perfect example of that. The corporation made $17 billion last year, while paying its workers poverty wages. As Walmart workers use government programs to get by, the six Walmart heirs now have more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined. Between 2007 and 2010 the wealth of the six richest Walmart heirs rose from $73 billion to $90 billion while the wealth of the average American declined from $126,000 to $77,000.
This results from government policy. The government doesn't require Walmart to pay a living wage. Instead, the government uses taxpayer dollars to minimally subsidize low-paid Walmart workers while cutting taxes on the wealthy Walmart heirs.
The government subsidizes Walmart the way it does millionaire farmers like Fincher. Though low-income workers receive the food stamps, essentially that government aid is welfare for Walmart. A food stamp applicant must prove poverty to qualify for government aid. But not big business. Not agri-business.
The number of food stamp recipients increased dramatically since 2008 because of the great recession, an event caused by reckless gambling on Wall Street. House Republican policy calls for the victims of the recession to suffer and the perpetrators to continue receiving low interest federal loans.
This policy, this funneling of money to the top, increases inequality and decreases opportunity. A child who goes to school hungry, for example, has a very hard time learning.
Universal Studios is among the corporations that have institutionalized inequity. At its parks, middle-class parents and their children wait for hours for entrance to attractions, but the wealthy and their scions simply cut in line. The children of the wealthy don't have to wait. Universal facilitates this with expensive VIP tickets that entitle rich children to park privileges. The VIP package includes hand sanitizer in case a rich kid accidentally touches a "regular Joe" kid, as Universal called them. Also, VIP families get exclusive breakfast and lunch service.
America feeds the rich. Equal opportunity is dead.
"The children wept, as no parents were there to share the moment—their parents had been killed by the Israeli army," said one observer.
More than 1,000 Palestinians children orphaned by Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza took part in a bittersweet graduation ceremony Monday at a special school in the south of the embattled enclave as Israeli forces continued their US-backed campaign of annihilation and ethnic cleansing nearby.
Dressed in caps and gowns and waving Palestinian flags, graduates of the school at al-Wafa Orphan Village in Khan Younis—opened earlier this year by speech pathologist Wafaa Abu Jalala—received diplomas as students and staff proudly looked on. It was a remarkable event given the tremendous suffering of Palestinians in Gaza, especially the children, and Israel's obliteration of the strip's educational infrastructure, often referred to as scholasticide.
Organizers said the event was the largest of its kind since Israel began leveling Gaza after the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023. Israel's assault and siege, which are the subject of an International Court of Justice genocide case, have left more than 62,000 Palestinians dead, including over 18,500 children—official death tolls that are likely to be a severe undercount.
The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics reported in April that nearly 40,000 children in Gaza have lost one or more of their parents to Israeli bombs and bullets in what the agency called the world's "largest orphan crisis" in modern history. Other independent groups say the number of orphans is even higher during a war in which medical professionals have coined a grim new acronym: WCNSF—wounded child, no surviving family.
Hundreds of thousands of other Palestinians are starving in what Amnesty International on Monday called a "deliberate campaign." Thousands of Gazan children are treated for malnutrition each month, and at least 122 have starved to death, according to local officials.
Early in the war, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) called Gaza "the world's most dangerous place to be a child." Last year, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres for the first time added Israel to his so-called "List of Shame" of countries that kill and injure children during wars and other armed conflicts. Doctors and others including volunteers from the United States have documented many cases in which they've concluded Israeli snipers and other troops have deliberately shot children in the head and chest.
Palestinian children take part in a graduation ceremony at al-Wafa Orphan Village in Khan Younis, Gaza on August 18, 2025. (Photo: Abdallah Alattar/Anadolu via Getty Images)
There are also more child amputees in Gaza than anywhere else in the world, with UN agencies estimating earlier this year that 3,000-4,000 Palestinian children have had one or more limbs removed, sometimes without anesthesia. The administration of US President Donald Trump—which provides Israel with many of the weapons used to kill and maim Palestinian children—recently stopped issuing visas to amputees and other victims seeking medical treatment in the United States.
All of the above have wrought what one Gaza mother called the "complete psychological destruction" of children in the embattled enclave.
Indeed, a 2024 survey of more than 500 Palestinian children in Gaza revealed that 96% of them fear imminent death, 92% are not accepting of reality, 79% suffer from nightmares, 77% avoid discussing traumatic events, 73% display signs of aggression, 49% wish to die because of the war, and many more "show signs of withdrawal and severe anxiety, alongside a pervasive sense of hopelessness."
Iain Overton, executive director of the UK-based group Action on Armed Violence, said at the time of the survey's publication that "the world's failure to protect Gaza's children is a moral failing on a monumental scale."
"No state should be above the law," said Younis Alkhatib of the Palestine Red Crescent Society. "The international community is obliged to protect humanitarians and to stop impunity."
The United Nations humanitarian affairs office said Tuesday that the new record of 383 aid workers killed last year while performing their lifesaving jobs was "shocking"—but considering Israel's relentless attacks on civilians, medical staff, journalists, and relief workers in Gaza, it was no surprise that the bombardment of the enclave was a major driver of the rise in aid worker deaths in 2024.
Nearly half of the aid workers killed last year—181 of them—were killed in Israeli attacks in Gaza, while 60 died in Sudan amid the civil war there.
The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) recorded a 31% increase in aid worker killings compared to 2023, the agency said as it marked World Humanitarian Day.
"Even one attack against a humanitarian colleague is an attack on all of us and on the people we serve," said Tom Fletcher, the UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs. "Attacks on this scale, with zero accountability, are a shameful indictment of international inaction and apathy."
Israel and its top allies, including the United States, have persisted in claiming it is targeting Hamas in its attacks on Gaza, which have killed more than 62,000 people—likely a significant undercount by the Gaza Health Ministry. It has also repeatedly claimed that its attacks on aid workers and other people protected under international law were "accidental."
"Every attack is a grave betrayal of humanity, and the rules designed to protect them and the communities they serve. Each killing sends a dangerous message that their lives were expendable. They were not."
"As the humanitarian community, we demand—again—that those with power and influence act for humanity, protect civilians and aid workers, and hold perpetrators to account," said Fletcher.
The UN Security Council adopted a resolution in May 2024 reaffirming that humanitarian staff must be protected in conflict zones—a month after the Israel Defense Forces struck a convoy including seven workers from the US-based charity World Central Kitchen, killing all of them.
More than a year later, said OCHA, "the lack of accountability remains pervasive."
The UN-backed Aid Worker Security Database's provisional numbers for 2025 so far show that at least 265 aid workers have been killed this year, with one of the deadliest attacks perpetrated by the IDF against medics and emergency responders in clearly marked vehicles in Gaza. Eight of the workers were with the Palestine Red Crescent Society, which on Tuesday noted that "Palestinian humanitarian workers have been deliberately targeted more than anywhere else."
"No state should be above the law," said Younis Alkhatib, president of the humanitarian group. "The international community is obliged to protect humanitarians and to stop impunity."
UN Secretary-General António Guterres said Tuesday that humanitarian workers around the world "are the last lifeline for over 300 million people" living in conflict and disaster zones.
What is missing as advocates demand protection for aid workers and as "red lines are crossed with impunity," said Guterres, is "political will—and moral courage."
"Humanitarians must be respected and protected," he said. "They can never be targeted."
Olga Cherevko of OCHA emphasized that despite Israel's continued bombardment of Gaza's healthcare systemsystem and its attacks at aid hubs, humanitarian workers continue their efforts to save lives "day in and day out."
"I think as a humanitarian, I feel powerless sometimes in Gaza because I know what it is that we can do as humanitarians when we're enabled to do so, both here in Gaza and in any other humanitarian crisis," said Cherevko. "We continue to face massive impediments for delivering aid at scale, when our missions are delayed, when our missions lasted 12, 14, 18 hours; the routes that we're given are dangerous, impassible, or inaccessible."
Israel has blocked the United Nations and other established aid agencies that have worked for years in the occupied Palestinian territories from delivering lifesaving aid in recent months, pushing the entire enclave towards famine.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) added in a statement that "our colleagues continue to show up not because they are fearless, but because the suffering is too urgent to ignore. Yet, courage is not protection, and dedication does not deflect bullets."
"The rules of war are clear: Humanitarian personnel must be respected and protected," said the ICRC. "Every attack is a grave betrayal of humanity, and the rules designed to protect them and the communities they serve. Each killing sends a dangerous message that their lives were expendable. They were not."
Along with the aid workers who were killed worldwide last year, 308 were injured, 125 were kidnapped, and 45 were detained for their work.
"Violence against aid workers is not inevitable," said Fletcher. "It must end."
"Equipment manufacturers like John Deere have lost millions, but let's remember that working people are hit hardest by the president's disastrous economic policies," said one lawmaker.
US President Donald Trump has pitched his tariffs on foreign goods as a way to bring more manufacturing jobs back into the United States.
However, it now appears as though the tariffs are hurting the manufacturing jobs that are already here.
As reported by Des Moines Register, iconic American machinery company John Deere announced on Monday that it is laying off 71 workers in Waterloo, Iowa, as well as 115 people in East Moline, Illinois, and 52 workers in Moline, Illinois. The paper noted that John Deere has laid off more than 2,000 employees since April 2024.
In its announcement of the layoffs, the company said that "the struggling [agriculture] economy continues to impact orders" for its equipment.
"This is a challenging time for many farmers, growers, and producers, and directly impacts our business in the near term," the company emphasized.
According to The New Republic, Cory Reed, president of John Deere's Worldwide Agriculture and Turf Division, said during the company's most recent earnings call that the uncertainty surrounding Trump's tariffs has led to many farmers putting off investments in farm equipment.
"If you have customers that are concerned about what their end markets are going to look like in a tariff environment, they're waiting to see the outcomes of what these trade deals look like," he explained.
Josh Beal, John Deere's director of investor relations, similarly said that "the primary drivers" for the company's negative outlook from the prior quarter "are increased tariff rates on Europe, India, and steel and aluminum."
The news of the layoffs drew a scathing rebuke from Nathan Sage, an Iowa Democrat running for the US Senate to unseat Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), who has praised the president's tariff policies.
"John Deere is once again laying off Iowans—a clear sign economic uncertainty hits the working class hardest, not the CEOs at the top," he wrote in a post on X. "Cheered on by Joni Ernst, Republicans in Washington want to play games with tariffs and give tax cuts to billionaires while Iowa families continue to struggle. It's time to stop protecting the top 1% and fight for the working people who keep our economy strong."
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) also ripped Trump's trade policies for hurting blue-collar jobs.
"Because of Trump's tariffs, farmers can't afford to buy what they need to make a living," he said. "Equipment manufacturers like John Deere have lost millions, but let's remember that working people are hit hardest by the president's disastrous economic policies. Tired of 'winning' yet?"
John Deere is not the only big-name American manufacturer to be harmed by the Trump tariffs, as all three of the country's major auto manufacturers in recent months have announced they expect to take significant financial hits from them.
Ford last month said that its profit could plunge by up to 36% this year as it expects to take a $2 billion hit from the president's tariffs on key inputs such as steel and aluminum, as well as taxes on car components manufactured in Canada and Mexico.
General Motors last month also cited the Trump tariffs as a major reason why its profits fell by $3 billion the previous quarter. Making matters worse, GM said that the impact of the tariffs would be even more significant in the coming quarter when its profits could tumble by as much as $5 billion.
GM's warning came shortly after Jeep manufacturer Stellantis projected that the Trump tariffs would directly lead to $350 million in losses in the first half of 2025.