Food stamps: Chew on this
House Republicans finally serve up a morsel of common sense by removing food stamps from the farm bill. And Democrats respond with a gag reflex. Judging from their letter of complaint to House Speaker John Boehner, one would think the GOP had ushered in the four horsemen of the Apocalypse.
Lumping one gargantuan federal subsidy into another is nothing more than logrolling — rural lawmakers get their plump farm pork, their urban counterparts get their ever-expanding food stamps.
And taxpayers? Why, they get shafted, of course.
The fact that 47 million Americans today rely on the government's so-called “nutrition program” — which continually comes under scrutiny for abuse and/or fraud — has no bearing on the 204 House Dems who signed the letter demanding a return to the status quo.
Republicans propose new eligibility and work requirements to reduce abuse in the food stamps program, The Hill newspaper reports. That makes sense. Likewise, the farm bill should be sheared of its outrageous subsides and allowances that benefit Big Ag at an intolerable cost to smaller farms and consumers.
No longer should food stamps, with their own set of problems, provide political cover for an overstuffed farm bill. Each should be judged on its own merits.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The China question
- The Western Psych grand jury report: Do the right thing
- The Justice Department’s improper political agenda
- The Chevy Volt: Short-circuited (again)
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Palmer v. District of Columbia: Upholding the 2nd Amendment
- Payments in lieu of taxes: It’s worth a try in Kittanning
- The Moody’s downgrade: Inaction’s price
- An ObamaCare ‘re-do’?
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes