House Farm bill demonstrates GOP hypocrisy re self proclaimed Fiscal prudence

[Bill USA]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/28/farm-bills-subsidies-food-stamps-editorials-debates/2594453/

This month, in a break with tradition, the House passed its version of a farm bill without including any money for food stamps (now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), ostensibly to rein in waste.

But that's not what's happening. The House bill retains lavish subsidies for an agriculture sector that is doing much better than many other parts of the economy — so lavish that they make a mockery of House Republicans' attempts at cost cutting.

The measure would cost roughly $200 billion over the next decade. That's nearly 10 times the much-maligned bank bailout, which is now expected to cost $21 billion, thanks to much of the original $700 billion having been paid back or never spent in the first place.

The Senate's version of the farm bill, largely a Democratic product, isn't quite as bad, but it also spends too much, rewards inefficiency and creates monopolies and cartels, all in an effort to transfer wealth from taxpayers to farmers.
(more)

[zbdent]

1. I remember Republicans freaking out about $50 bil over 10 years ...

to help keep low-income kids healthy ... seems that when you draw your first breath outside the womb, they don't give a flying f*ck about you.

[Bill USA]

2. I wish Dems would include in bills seeking to infringe on women's rights to birth control, funding

that will be needed for increased demand for food stamps, medical care, and all the other programs that are impacted by higher birth rates. Part of "pay as you go". .. Not that this makes Government getting involved inthe most personal decisions women and family's can make -- which must be fought vigorously, in the name of stopping Government from getting involved in citizens persoanl lives and infringing on their rights - but it also injects a bit of reality into the picture.