Our Congress succeeded in finally producing a farm bill that will trim back the government giveaways to those who, some lawmakers believe, clearly are too lazy to work or to make their children take jobs cleaning school cafeterias. It’s just easier to just go to the local food bank and get boxes of macaroni, dry milk and canned chicken.

The Los Angeles Times reported Jan. 29 that U.S. Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Calif., was annoyed that food stamps had not been cut more.

He was paraphrased as saying that he “had come to the realization that food stamp recipients needed to tighten their belts in the name of governmental economizing.”

Luckily, 15 of those same lawmakers ensure food production continues by keeping themselves on the list of agriculture subsidy recipients.

Rep. Stephen Fincher, R-Tenn., member of the House Agriculture Committee, was the biggest recipient of the subsidies last year, receiving $70,574. The second-biggest recipient was LaMalfa, also an Agriculture Committee member.

Others include Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, and the family of House Agriculture Committee Chair Frank Lucas, R-Okla.

The conservative, pro-business American Enterprise Institute notes the subsidies could cost taxpayers $15 billion more per year than do existing crop programs, much of it going to the wealthiest farmers and the crop insurance industry.

The AEI says it’s a “bait and switch” program. Even the libertarian/conservative Cato Institute calls it corporate welfare.

What does it say about our citizens that they continue to elect people who line their pockets at Americans’ expense while millions go hungry?

Dawn Leland

Portland