Political Communication blog

This is a tough issue with no good answers. Obama is tasked with making cuts to the budget, and as he has said many times, some of these cuts would be painful.

This kind of issue is technically exactly what Republicans use their current favorite phrase, WASTEFUL SPENDING. However, because this is a kind of spending that impacts their most solid conservative base, they really can't say it.

Think about that. Any kind of government subsidy for traditionally liberal issues, the manufacture of green technologies for example or building new high speed rail lines to make our transportation more efficient, are the worst examples of WASTEFUL SPENDING, even though the manufacture of such things creates jobs and produces permanent benefits like cost savings and reduction of reliance on foreign energy sources like oil.

But Obama wanting to cut subsidies to the most prosperous megafarms that actually do not need subsidies, that in fact according to that article or another I read gives the megafarms funds to buy up other smaller farms, will be cast as an out of touch liberal president dismissing the small farmer.

It's all theater, and the actors hope that most of the audience never catches on.

Don't get me wrong and think I'm just pooping on Republicans, I know Democrats are guilty of the same types of behavior. Just not in this case.
 

Unfortunately Dan is completely off base here.
This is really long.. I don’t really expect anyone to read it .. if you want you can skip to the bottom where I actually tell the facts on Farm Subsidies.. that’s where the real info is!
- A. Dan said that farming subsidy is exactly what republicans call wasteful spending, but that we can not admit it because it impacts the republican base...
- MY response: Bush began steps to reduce subsidy payments to framers at the latest in 2005, this issue was supported by republicans and democrats alike (the fight on the issue was with special interest parties)
B. Dan said: republicans believe “Any kind of government subsidy for traditionally liberal issues, the manufacture of green technologies for example or building new high speed rail lines to make our transportation more efficient, are the worst examples of WASTEFUL SPENDING, even though the manufacture of such things creates jobs and produces permanent benefits like cost savings and reduction of reliance on foreign energy sources like oil”.
- My response: I really won’t even go into all of the preceding paragraph, but it is simply a rant on republicans. Dan is speaking in absolutes here and using your question as a chance to attack republican policies.
C. Dan Said: “But Obama wanting to cut subsidies to the most prosperous megafarms (that actually do not need subsidies) gives the mega-farms funds to buy up other smaller farms, will be cast as an out of touch liberal president dismissing the small farmer.” … basically he says Obams’ plan to cut subsidies will be attacked (I assume he means by republicans). He says it will be attacked as a a “liberal president dismissing the small farmer”
- My response: WRONG!!! First Dan said that farm subsidy is the type of WASTEFUL SPENDING that republicans attack, but that we wont attack this because it affects the republican base.. Then he later continues that Obamas choice to cut farm subsidy will be attacked? Confused? ALSO.. farm subsidy will affect the megafarms more so than the small farmer … so there goes your logic behind that!
THE FACTS ON FARM SUBSIDY!
- it is typically believed that farm subsidies support small farmers and lower the cost of food.. this is not exactly right! There are a lot of different types of farm subsidies, and not may of them help with the cost of food!
- The money for subsidies comes from your taxes (in other words you pay higher taxes to get “cheaper” foods) HOWEVER, though that is the “intent” behind farm subsidies.. many agricultural subsidies go to “conservation” in which farmers are paid not to grow crops.. in other words less crop is produced (so the cost of food goes up!) YOU PAY TAXES FOR THE GOVT. TO PAY SOMEONE ELSE TO DRIVE UP THE COST OF FOOD! ..
- The largest subsidy amounts are paid for rice and cotton ( these two crops also happen to be huge import crops. This brings us to another type of subsidy --- the government limits the amount of certain crops to be imported – these barriers drive up the price of import crops. So even though cotton may be subsidized here in the U.S. its cost is still driven up by a limit on the import of the crop.
- Small farmers… most “small farmers” don’t own the land they farm- if the land they farm is subsidized the owners pay a higher rent.. there for the subsidy is canceled out.
 

in that last part i mean.. that if the land is subsidised the the farmer who rents the subsidized land pays higher rent to the land owner... and then the farmer must chrge more for the crop and thus the subsidy is canceled out.
 

I thought I was being clear, but maybe not. My point is that the farmers who receive subsidies are generally supporters of conservatives in government. They're mostly in the red states after all.

Because of that, conservatives aren't likely to go after farm subsidies, even though, as I understand it, subsidies go against their free market principles.

Therefore, they will attack President Obama as out of touch with America's small farmers, for proposing cuts to subsidies of LARGE mega-farming operations. Small farmers aren't getting the majority of the subsidies. Instead, the large farms with all the profits reap the most benefits from subsidies. Obama thinks that these are the ones who don't even need the subsidies, and has identified those particular subsidies for farms making a profit above a threshold for cuts.

Paying already profitable farms extra taxpayer money -- isn't that what conservatives in Congress decry as WASTEFUL SPENDING?