Perhaps you can help me with the math, I must have something wrong.
If the current Farm bill is $290 billion, and 66% is going to urban/rural poor and working class, that is a $193 billion to $97 billion ratio.
The prior farm bill was $270 billion. $178 billion went to urban/rural poor and working class and $92 billion went to farmers. That is a 66% ratio.
I know these bills are not the easiest things in the world to decipher, perhaps these sources are misleading.
Quote:
|
About two-thirds of the bill would pay for domestic nutrition programs such as food stamps and emergency food aid for the needy. An additional $40 billion is for farm subsidies, while almost $30 billion would go to farmers to idle their land and to other environmental programs.
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1210..._us_whats_news
Quote:
The total six-year (FY2002-FY2007) cost of the major provisions of the 2002 farm bill was $270.2 billion, or an average of $45.0 billion per year. Of this amount, $178.2 billion, or nearlytwo-thirds, was for the food stamp program, while $92.1 billion was for the three major categories of farm support: farm commodity programs, conservation, and
trade.
|
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a
Short of some adjustments and rounding errors, I would not have supported the 2002 bill nor could I support the current bill. Even given the additional amounts targeted to the poor, that will be off-set by increased cost of food because of the on-going subsidies. Seems the only winners are the wealthy farmers.