Seeing several articles, some based on EWG's research, hitting Trump's MFPI and MFPII for helping big farmers and not small ones.
Seems to me there's a basic conceptual issue here; how are farm programs to be "framed"?
One way to look at them is as "welfare", similar to food stamps, welfare (TANF), Pell grants and student loans, etc. For welfare programs, our expectation is that our tax dollars are given on the basis of "need", with the most needy getting the most money. If farm programs are indeed "welfare", as they've often been labeled, then giving the most money to the largest farmers in bass-ackwards.
Another way to look at them is as "insurance", whether it's federal flood insurance or unemployment insurance or the insurance policies on cars, homes, and life provided by private companies. In all such cases (that I can think of), insurance coverage is tied to the "value" of the property. The more expensive the car or house, the more coverage you can get on them. The better your salary, the higher your unemployment insurance benefit.
No comments:
Post a Comment