The family farm is dead, maybe it is time to stop the welfare checks

Agricultural subsidies are supposed to help the “family farm” guess what that is not how it works.

Last year, The New York Times reported that more than half of the food aid purchased in recent years has gone to just four companies and their subsidiaries: Cargill, Bunge, Cal Western Packaging and Archer Daniels Midland. None of the four would comment on their relationship with Food for Peace, but to contract with a program that spent $1.87 billion last year must have its benefits

George Bush of all people is trying to make the aid program more efficient by allowing aid goups to purchaes the food closer to where the famine is occuring thus lowering transportation costs and getting the food to the effected area in a timely manner.

The article
goes on to quote a congressman from one of the welfare recipient states:

Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the highest ranking Republican on the House Agriculture Committee, issued a statement this week questioning the logic of allowing America’s food aid to leave U.S. shores as cash.

“The purchases from U.S. farms benefit our economy,” he said, “as the expenditures circulate through the U.S. economy rather than the European economy or that of other major food exporting nations … I believe making this type of policy change carries the great risk of undercutting congressional support for food aid programs and thereby the ability to provide aid to those in need.”

In other words the only reason we care about people starving is that a few comapanies can make a buck off of it in the US. It seems that members of both parties loath welfare queens when they drive Cadillacs but when they drive tractors the same people stand in line to kiss their ass.

This entry was posted in Words. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The family farm is dead, maybe it is time to stop the welfare checks

  1. Although agricultural subsidization also grew under Democratic administrations and Congresses, John. Putting this solely on Bush is fallacious.

  2. John Rove says:

    If anything Bush looks good in the article. His administration is at least trying to make the program less of a farm welfare program and more of an international aid program. Especially given the time involved to get the food where it needs to be, it seems kind of silly to insist the food be purchased in the US and shipped. it is easier and probably cheaper to buy the food near where the famine iis occuring thn to ship it from the US.

Comments are closed.