TEA PARTY WINS BIG ON FARM BILL

The Farm Bill that failed is a classic case of Washington D.C. mishmash. The politicians seem compelled to manipulate and maneuver for the sake of manipulating and maneuvering but a clever few know how to take advantage of it. The Farm Bill was 67% food stamps for those below the poverty line, seniors, schoolchildren from low-income families, and Native Americans. In the eyes of some, this is big government.

The conservative mindset is that of Ayn Rand; it is their own fault that poor people are poor. They just do not matter and for the successful people to try to help them is futile. They should go to work, or, as Ann Coulter once said, those people sleeping on grates in the streets of Washington D.C. should get up, work hard, and go to Harvard as she did.

Principled anti big government conservatives will vote against the Farm Bill because a major part of the legislation helps poor people, which is exactly the same reason that nurturing liberals will vote for it. Conservatives frame their argument around the classic “Welfare Annie” concept of Ronald Reagan—people on food stamps are cheaters and by giving food stamps, you make the problem worse, which is the moral hazard argument. The truth is that if you look hard, you will find some cheaters but the great major of the people need food stamps to eat.

When cornered in debate, conservatives will agree that the people who really need help should get it; however, they are willing to destroy the entire program because there are some cheaters. If the conservatives provided money to detect cheaters and take care of the problem, they would discover what liberals already know, there are very few but also they would destroy their argument, so they will not do it. Like, conservatives, liberals also frame their argument around the idea that there are poor people, there always will be poor people, but the answer is not to starve them so they go away (starve to death)—a form of social Darwinism or survival of the fittest. The answer is to prevent the creation of more poor people (Social Security, Obamacare), lessen the numbers of those we need help, and provide for those who are physically and mentally incapable of self-maintenance.

To pass the Farm Bill, which is truly a bill to help the poor people; politicians attached the label “farm” bill as if its purpose is to help marginal farmers. The real political target liberals were maneuvering for were the “internal lobbyist”, the few rich conservative farmers in the Congress who predictable would be willing to compromise their conservative principles for millions in subsidies, while urging their colleagues to vote with them for legislation under the guise of helping the people, which sells well in some districts. The irony is that liberals were using conservative greed to get them to do something for poor people.

What happened is that the Tea Party conservatives saw the liberal ploy for what it was and turned it against them. With the help of conventional conservatives, they added huge cuts to the parts of the legislation that benefit the poor but keep the parts that benefit the rich. Liberals didn’t like the huge cuts and some conventional conservatives did not think the cuts were deep enough. Who won? So far, the radical tea party people won because they, as a small minority, were able to prevent the bill from passing—just as with the sequester, they cut government spending, which was their goal—make government smaller and smaller and smaller. 

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated