Some Republican Lawmakers Got The Biggest "Food Stamps" Of All
Can we stop pretending that the Republican party is the party of small government and removing entitlements? Well, sure, Republicans are sometimes for removing entitlements -- when the entitlements aren't going directly to them.
Andrew Kaczynski writes at Buzzfeed that some Republican lawmakers who voted to cut food stamps personally received large farm subsidies for their family farms:
Several of the House Republicans who voted Thursday for a bill that slashed billions of dollars from the food stamp program personally received large farm subsidies for family farms. The bill cutting the food stamp program narrowly passed on a mostly party line 217 to 210 vote.During the food stamp debate, GOP Rep. Stephen Fincher, who received thousands in farm subsidies, responded to a Democratic Congressman during the debate over the cuts by quoting the bible, saying "the one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."
Fincher himself has received his own large share of government money. From 1999 to 2012, Stephen & Lynn Fincher Farms received $3,483,824 in agriculture subsidies. Last year he took in $70,574 alone.
Another Republican congresswoman who voted to make cuts to the food stamp program was Rep. Vicky Hartzler of Missouri. Her farm received more than $800,000 in Department of Agriculture subsidies from 1995-2012. In 2001, her farm received $135,482 in subsidies.
Absolutely disgusting. And lawmaking as usual. For both parties. But the Democrats don't pretend to have problems with the taxpayer-funded teat.
The Goddess asks: Can we stop pretending that the Republican party is the party of small government and removing entitlements?
I never did believe that. Corporations get entitlements all the time, and who favors those? You guess it.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans who comes to the government with their hand out.
Small government? Republicans? The party that wants to be in charge of reproductive rights and in our bedrooms at the same time?
Patrick at September 22, 2013 10:45 AM
"Corporations get entitlements all the time, and who favors those? You guess it."
Okay, I'll guess: no Democrat ever favored locating a business in their district. No Democrat owns stock in any corporation, which value depends on the success of that corporation, and no Democrat would ever think of aiding a corporation in his or her district, no matter how much stock he/she owns, or how many constituents of hers/his the corporation employs.
Isn't that the contrast you're trying to establish?
How did I do?
Radwaste at September 22, 2013 3:05 PM
A better question is why the food stamp program, and farm subsidies were ever bundled in the first place.
Maybe by seperating the programs they will each fail on their own merits.
Isab at September 22, 2013 5:22 PM
I know this is rhetorical, but Isab's second statement answers the first one.
Cousin Dave at September 23, 2013 6:51 AM
It is disgusting. Establishment Republicans did not even want to defund 0bamacare until conservatives put extraordinary pressure on them. Even now, success with Senate Republicans is not guaranteed.
mpetrie98 at September 23, 2013 11:38 AM
The food stamps and ag programs were originally bundled in the 1960s as a political move, to get them passed. The Rural districts approved of the ag programs and the Urban districts approved of the food stamps. Bundled together, there was something for everybody. It was the only way to get it done. Back in the day, when two points of view could find a way to compromise.
In the 1960s, the ag programs were basically for the small family farms. There were not many big commercial growers such as dominate farming today.
We would put a field into soilbank, get a small check that helped with the taxes (not a lot of money), and the land got to rest for a season. It also tied into preventing surpluses and price supports-not a free market by any means. The difference now is huge sums going to a few huge corporate farms, instead of a small amount to many small family farms. The whole idea needs to be reworked for the way things are today.
A neighbor who lives on 15 acres but does not farm recently leased a pasture to a farmer for cattle. She said they would pay him to bring the cows if they had to because it made them several thousand back on their taxes, when the property became a Farm.
bmused at September 23, 2013 9:37 PM
This is another reason we should all be thankful for the work of Normal Bourlag and George Carver. We have the most bountiful ag system in the world, despite 75 years of central planning.
Cousin Dave at September 24, 2013 6:48 AM
Leave a comment