What is the difference between bailing out American farmers and bailing out Wall Street?
For that matter, what is the difference between giving struggling farmers money they didn’t earn versus giving that same money to urban minorities?
Simple answer: urban minorities don’t vote Republican.
The Farm Bill is currently snaking its way through Congress. If passed, it will provide nearly $1 trillion over the next decade in much-needed assistance for American farmers and their families who have been struggling to make ends meet this year, according to The New York Times.
Yes, that’s not a typo, one trillion dollars.
Excessive drought has plagued a vast quantity of agricultural land in the central U.S., prompting the government to act accordingly.
I have no problem with this. These farmers and their families need help. No rain means no crops, which means no money.
Why is this bill so much less controversial than, say, the Wall Street bailout or Obamacare?
The Farm Bill passed with bipartisan support, a term nobody in Washington has used in the past two years, in the Senate. But isn’t it just a bailout, a system of welfare or even, dare I say it, socialist intervention in the economy?
If you chose all of the above, congratulations, you can read between the lines.
The Farm Bill is a form of welfare. It’s a social safety net designed to make sure American farmers can still afford to live and provide for their families this year.
This bill has received bipartisan support because the Democrats know it has to happen, and the Republicans want to bail out their own constituents.
Giving taxpayer money to people who vote Republican and withholding it from Democratic strongholds is still welfare, it’s just hypocritical welfare.
Damn near the entire midwest is predicted to be comprised of red states this coming election, save Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
The lesson we have to take from the Farm Bill is that Republicans aren’t against welfare, they are only against giving it to people who don’t vote for them.
House Republican leaders stated that they will not vote on the Farm Bill until after the November elections, according to CNN, further delaying the much needed assistance.
The federal government’s total welfare spending for the 2012 fiscal year amounts to $451.9 billion. This includes housing, unemployment, food stamps, worker’s compensation and TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families).
For those who can’t subtract, that’s more than $500 billion less than the proposed Farm Bill total.
The federal government spent a total of $668 billion on “anti-poverty programs” this year, according to Fox News. Yeah, that’s right, I sourced Fox News — just so the Republicans know these are their numbers.
It’s up to the reader to speculate what exactly is included in a lump sum number of “anti-poverty program” spending, but I imagine it includes all of the $451.9 billion in welfare spending, plus healthcare costs.
I don’t know who’s doing the math, but if Republicans are complaining about $668 billion spent on the poor, why would they go along with $1 trillion?
Any way you look at it, the Farm Bill is an enormous sum of cash. It’s necessary, but so are other welfare programs designed to help non-rural and non-Republican voters.
The Farm Bill, along with other welfare programs such as TANF and Medicaid, is a necessary social safety net to ensure large chunks of our economy don’t plummet into oblivion.
Recognize this bill for what it is — a bailout.
