• Share

When simpler isn't better



So in theory, I'd support taking food stamps out of the farm bill, the better to let the thing actually function as a vehicle of farm reform. But not like this. Not by simply passing a farm bill sans food stamps, with no new amendments allowed on the former and no concrete commitments on the latter. That's not a common-sense simplification of a convoluted process; it's an excuse to keep throwing money at corporations that don't need it while jeopardizing food aid for people who do.

In order for a more common-sense approach to farm policy and food stamps to actually be helpful, we also need a common-sense conversation about food stamps themselves. Unfortunately, that's not the conversation we have. Food stamps recipients are too often dismissed as "takers" or even villified as "moochers." In reality, food stamps go mostly to working families, disproportionately—"welfare queen" dog whistlers beware—rural ones (pdf). Food stamps keep these families out of poverty. And they help the economy, a lot.

Yes, food stamps cost money. And as long as gutting safety-net spending is the dominant theme in the House of Representatives, programs like food stamps will be at risk regardless of how much good they do or how efficiently. Until that changes, a convoluted farm bill that preserves food stamps (or rather, only cuts them a little) remains the least of several evils.

Join the Conversation via Facebook
