The U.S. has few farmers. So why does Congress love farm subsidies?

Washington Post ^ | July 12, 2013 | Brad Plumer

[JerseyanExile]

This week, House Republicans passed a rather unusual farm bill. There was no money for food stamps for the poor, a program that typically makes up the bulk of these bills. But the House did manage to pass billions in subsidies for farmers and agribusinesses.

Ideology probably can’t explain this vote — at least not entirely. Most outside conservative groups were aghast at the crop insurance and commodity supports, which will cost taxpayers some $195 billion over 10 years. Yet House Republicans actually made the farm aid more generous — by adding a new shallow loss income entitlement program, tossing in new protections for sugar production and ensuring that price supports for crops don’t sunset in 2018.

This raises a question: Why are lawmakers so willing to vote for farm subsidies — even lawmakers who usually oppose government spending? After all, only a small fraction of the U.S. population even farms anymore.

[manc]

is ti true you can get the Govt to buy land for you and then put on a few cows and then call it agriculture and therefore not only get free land but also tax free money from the USDA

[jjotto]

...lawmakers who usually oppose government spending?

LOL. Only in Washington Post Land do Republican legislators "oppose government spending". WaPo writers, what DON'T they know?

[Falcon4.0]

"The U.S. has few farmers. So why does Congress love farm subsidies?"

My guess would be that they are all getting to dip into the subsidy slush fund in some way.

[Track9]

I thought 80% of it was vote buying with food stamps.

[YHAOS]

"I thought 80% of it was vote buying with food stamps."

The other 20% is vote buying and contributions for Repubic coffers. You haven't yet figured it out?

[YukonGreen]

Have a separate bill/program for food stamps, nothing else attached to it and let the populace know what that is costing.

[arthurus]

Easy question. One big reason is it helps the government to control food supplies.

[Steamburg]

Looks like they are dipping their toes in the Democrat game. If it goes through they will get huge kick backs. If it fails in the senate or gets the veto, they get to blame the Democrats.

This is how we have watched our government at work for the last 70 years. As long as getting elected and reelected remains profitable....

[Cloverfarm]

Farmer’s wife says ... I wish ...

[Zhang Fei]

Because the country is overtaxed as a whole, but an across-the-board tax cut garners few popular votes because the benefits are too diffuse. Whereas farmers are presumably well-organized, and do show up to vote if their interests are affected. Ultimately, the solution is to drastically cut the $1T annual non-Medicare and non-SS welfare state, but the likelihood of Democrats supporting it is the same as that of hell freezing over.

[Carriage Hill]

It is. The actual 10yr cost is over $1 Trillion; the figure quoted is just the farm subsidies and pork.

Farm Bill 101:

http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/farm-bill-101

[Amendment10]

Regardless what FDR's activist justices wanted everybody to think about Congress's Commerce Clause powers when they decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress's favor, the following two excerpts from case opinions clearly indicate that the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate agricultural purposes.

"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden (emphasis added)."--Mr. Justice Roberts(?), United States v. Butler, 1936.

[GeronL]

farm and corporate handouts must along with those grants to leftist orgs like ACORN, NPR , PP, and such

[no-to-illegals]

I remember when sam donaldson (abc news) let it slip he was receiving farm subsidies.

[GeronL]

end -lol

[GeronL]

mohair

[digger48]

Ltr

[no-to-illegals]

yep ... said he was being paid not to plant. Bought a farm and was being paid not to plant anything. Guess that was why he went bald with an over-the-top covering. Paid not to plant.

[Balding_Eagle]

Separating The Cheap Food For Consumers Bill (most often simply called The Farm Bill) from the food stamps is bad for politics.

When it is such an enormous bill, and called The Farm Bill it’s easy for politicians, and even Freepers, to malign farmers for the cost.

Politicians are smart enough to see that, so it won’t be separated.

Freepers will be empowered to continue your belittlement.

Ignorance is often bliss.

Just understand, there are a number of us who are better informed, and appreciate the fact that never before in the entire history of the world has such an abundance of food be available to so many people for such a low price.

Hats off to the American Farmer.