After all the ink that’s been spilled lamenting congressional dysfunction in the last couple of years, the passage of the $956 billion farm bill has us yearning for those halcyon days of gridlock.

Last week, the U.S. House, in a bipartisan vote, passed the legislation that will set much of the nation’s food and farm policy for the next five years. The bill was passed by the Senate Tuesday and is expected to be signed by President Barack Obama.

To be sure, the complicated legislation has some good qualities.

First of all, nobody read the 959-page bill, just like nobody read the 1,500-page spending bill passed with a Republican majority earlier last month. Yes, we count this as a good thing, because finally, the old Obamacare canard about having time to read the bill can be put to rest.

Let’s face it, the only people who read the bills are the staffers and wonks who are paid to do it. Can we finally put an end to this loser’s argument, please?

Second, the bill gets rid of the wasteful practice of paying certain farmers, many of them wealthy, direct subsidies in good times and bad.

It ties some new farm subsidies to important environmental protections. And it protects the very important Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) from further harm for a few years.

But about those food stamps.

The farm bill cuts $8 billion out of a program that more and more Americans rely on in a changing economy to feed their families.

That travesty alone should convince Obama to veto the bill.

If it becomes law, 850,000 American households will have to eat on about $90 less per month. Why? Either greed or just plain meanness.

Cutting food stamps now, even in a compromise bill that isn’t as bad as it could have been, would be a travesty.

Keep in mind, “compromise” doesn’t mean cutting everywhere equally. While some farmers lost their direct payments, they got in its place a generous crop insurance incentive that some estimates show will eventually pay them more than they were reaping from the old subsidies.

Big corporate farms win. Small farmers lose. This is the congressional way: The rich get richer and the poor get food yanked from their mouths.

Our friends at The New York Times suggest that since this horrendous bill isn’t as bad as it could have been, it’s not worth rolling the dice that the next Congress won’t make it worse.

We think the opposite. People are waking up to the realities of income inequality. Business people. Regular folks. Economists. The political class.

The president has called income inequality the “defining challenge of our time.” Vetoing the farm bill would back up those words.

America’s divide between the haves and have-nots has reached epic proportions. Saying no to this farm bill would help, if only slightly, swing the pendulum back toward fundamental fairness.

-- By the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, another Lee Enterprises newspaper.

(6) comments

iowafarmgirl

The whole dam government is sending our country in the wrong direction!

iowafarmgirl

Our whole government is sending America in the wrong direction!

iowafarmgirl

sorry this was written twice--first time I thought I should remove the word dam then found out I couldn't remove it!

fromiowa

The farmer who can raise his own food will reap while the working poor, disabled, chronically ill, unemployed, single WORKING Mothers paying for childcare (with deadbeat dads paying nothing) and elderly will go hungry. Congress be D**NED!

Brown

These bills that are passed. They start out good with little cost to tax payers, but to get the votes to pass the bill, backs need to be scratched.
A contributor to my campaign could benefit if this was added to the bill, if so, you have my vote. These congressmen are playing a game with our country and helping out the one's who contributed most.
All our congress men NEED to be voted out and only a 2 term limit for state and US congressmen.

Jack jones

The 850,000 households who will eat on $90, sorry but no sympathy from me. Tons of jobs are available if you are willing to go "out your front door" and make an effort to look. Less than 1percent of minimum wage jobs are "family" jobs. Most are college age second jobs needed for beer and pizza. So don't fret about the farm bill. Plus if the NewYork a Times is against it, I'm all for it.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.