The Herald of Everett, Washington
HeraldNet on Facebook HeraldNet on Twitter HeraldNet RSS feeds HeraldNet Pinterest HeraldNet Google Plus HeraldNet Youtube
HeraldNet Newsletters  Newsletters: Sign up | Manage  Green editions icon Green editions

Calendar


HeraldNet Headlines
HeraldNet Newsletter Delivered to your inbox each week.
Published: Thursday, February 27, 2014, 1:00 a.m.
Farm bill


Both parties are big spenders

The farm bill passed and Republicans and Democrats patted each other on the back and scolded the other side for the areas that they didn’t get. The bill increases from $640 billion to $960 billion over the next 10 years. The Herald editorial, “The politics of the farm bill,” pushed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps and also Rep. Susan Delbene’s agenda. First the $8 billion reduction to $756 billion in SNAP spending is a huge, enormous, debilitating cut of 1.1 percent and they decry that people “will just have to eat less” as quoted from the editorial. Delbene loves spending money on SNAP and takes pride in the fact that the program has grown from $20 billion to $80 billion per year in the last decade. I never hear what we can do to up lift our working poor and getting them out of poverty or how has program requirements changed to bring so many into the program. Currently 20 percent of U.S. households receive food stamps; we should be ashamed that our economy is at this level.
I will also criticize the Republican part with farm subsidies in which the largest 10 percent of farm businesses receive three-fourths of the subsidies. Republicans declare that the bill helps small working farms, but the truth is that the average U.S. farm household made $87,289 in 2011 which is 25 percent higher than the average U.S. household of $69,677. I grew up in a farming area and I realize that for a small family farm that this is not easy but subsidizing crops raises our grocery bills and makes it harder for working class people to afford food. Federal controls on the dairy and sugar industries raise prices and are costly to consumers. If subsidies were eliminated, it would cause short term modifications but over time the system would re-adjust and farmers would adjust their planting and land use, cuts costs and diversify their incomes. If we want to see food prices go down, we should eliminate the requirement for ethanol in our fuel. We could reduce food prices and also get better gas mileage since we get less efficiency from ethanol. We burn up 4 percent of the world’s large grain supply. We burn 40 percent of the U.S. corn production, which raises prices on beef, chicken, etc ... and that impacts all of us in the wallet.
Todd Welch
Lake Stevens
digital subscription promo

Subscribe now

Unlimited digital access starting at 99 cents, or included with any print subscription.

loading...

Herald Editorial Board

Jon Bauer, Opinion Editor: jbauer@heraldnet.com

Carol MacPherson, Editorial Writer: cmacpherson@heraldnet.com

Neal Pattison, Executive Editor: npattison@heraldnet.com

Josh O'Connor, Publisher: joconnor@heraldnet.com

Have your say

Feel strongly about something? Share it with the community by writing a letter to the editor. Send letters by e-mail to letters@heraldnet.com, by fax to 425-339-3458 or mail to The Herald - Letters, P.O. Box 930, Everett, WA 98206. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. (We'll only publish your name and hometown.) We reserve the right to edit letters, but if you keep yours to 250 words or less, we wonít ask you to shorten it. If your letter is published, please wait 30 days before submitting another. Have a question about letters? Contact Carol MacPherson at cmacpherson@heraldnet.com or 425-339-3472.