|
Perhaps Mr. Willis should pay more attention to what he reads.
The editorial spoke of farm subsidies; a portion of the farm bill. It is true that the Bill itself sets aside the majority of its funding for the food stamp program, as well as conservation programs, in addition to subsidies. It is also true that subsidies can help the very poor, who are more likely to spend a larger percent of their income on food, rather than the taxes that fund the subsidies. But, as the editorial mentioned, the part of the bill that funds subsidies is a huge problem.
First, consider Farm Bill funding that sets aside cash for conservation programs. Those programs are necessitated by the non-sustainable agricultural practices that subsidies promote! Farmers, paid by the bushel, are encouraged to reap as much from their land as possible, resulting in a monoculture from fence to fence. Further, to increase yields, petroleum based fertilizers, as well as herbicides and pesticides, are litterally drenched over the crops. These practices, resulting in agricultural pollution and starved soil conditions, require the environmental funding in the Farm Bill. See what happens? We are taxed for subsidies and then further taxed in order to clean up after the environmental havoc.
But what about the poor, and food stamps. Farm subsidies make it so that the cheapest food available is processed food. We are literally subsidizing high fructose corn syrup and fatty oils. We are subsidizing the obesity epidemic, subsidizing the increase in childhood diabetes. The poor, who may lack access to quality health care, who can't afford gym passes, and who work too much to worry about exercising, further suffer from cheap, unhealthy food. Food stamps can be a blessing; subsidizing unhealthy food choices is the curse. Moreover, the poor in developing countries are further hurt by American subsidies. Coming from agricultural areas, they cannot economically compete with cheap American food; food that actually costs more to grow than to buy.
The Farm Bill needs an overall, that was the point of the editorial. Subsidies have to go.
|
