Jason, I know Denny is capable and willing to answer your question, but I may have a little different take on the point of Food Stamps.
I understand that there are people who, for whatever reason, are incabable of handling money, and have kids who need food. Easier for govt to throw money at the problem via the stamps. I wish there were education in financial planning and budgeting requjired for people living on government money and/or foodstamps. And more investigating to assure cheaters are not getting what should be going to those in true need.
I don't like that Food Stamps and other 'Entitlement Programs' are under the dept of Ag (USDA) because the general citizenry erroneously believes ALL money spent in that dept benefits farmers. I've read that more than half the USDA budget actually benefitslow income people other than farmers, yet farmers get the 'blame'. I believe it should be clearly and frequently published that X $$ of USDA goes to non-farmers and X$$ goes to farmers, at least each quarter of the year.
I'm not as well informed as I would like on all farm programs, but aren't there some that make up the difference between market price for grains such as wheat, and the actual cost of growing the stuff? There was a wheat farmer in SD who had a great idea.....market wheat as an aphrodisiac and the prices would sky-rocket!
Are there still programs where payments are used because the gov't is cutting acres planted of some crops?
Then there are the so-called insurance programs. We really got took on buying hay crop insurance. We had less than a third of a normal crop due to drought. But that was enough to negate the insurance payment. If I recall correctly, we had just a few pounds, total, above the limit, on 200 acres. We were out the premiums paid, and two thirds of a hay crop lost to drought. Probably won't need to repeat that 'learning experience'!
Now, with cuts from the admin. crop recipients are taking money away from cost sharing for conservation projects. Suppose CRP still will be increased funding because sportsmen like that program which can increase bird cover, and some have purchased farmland enrolled in that program and used the payments to make their land payments for a few years. Not sure that was within the intent of the original program, which really was to take marginal, erodible farmland out of production and return it to more natural grass or trees.
LB, thanks for posting that great editorial by Mary Poss. I didn't get it read in my local paper. It is an accurate appraisal, I believe.
MRJ