Five Tea Party House members have received farm subsidies, reports ABC News. The amounts received since 1995 range from nearly $180,000 (Indiana Rep. Marlin Stuzman) to over $3 million (Reps. Stephen Fincher of Tennessee and Kristi Noem of South Dakota).
Missouri Rep. Vicki Hartzler, who has received nearly $775,000 in farm subsidies, told ABC that cutting farm subsidies “should be on the table,” but would not commit to voting against them. Fincher suggested that the program needed to be “streamline[d]” while Noem told ABC in September that she saw “some potential” in considering farm subsidies cuts, but added that it was important to be “giving our farmers an opportunity to work on a level playing field with other countries.”
The fifth Tea Party recepient was Iowa Rep. Tom Latham, who has received over $1 million.
Stuzman was the only Tea Party recepient who directly said he would cut farm subsidies, which can cost up to $20 billion annually.
“Yes, I would vote to eliminate farm subsidies. It manipulates the market,” he told ABC.
This never seemed like that big a deal to me -- how are you supposed to compete against farms that receive the subsidies if you don't?
As long as the Tea Partiers vote to end the subsidies, I don't mind if they take them any more than people mind if the Obamas claim "the Bush tax cuts for the rich" that they oppose so much.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWho, honestly, could possibly be surprised by this news?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAwaiting ABC News report on whether Chuckie Schumer accepts his Bush tax cut or not?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBig whoop. We have a farm subsidy program and they are eligible recipients. To not take the subsidies is to put themselves at a disadvantage compared to other farmers who do take the subsidies.
If any of them refuse to cut the subsidies in order to protect their government checks, then I have concerns. This is little different than Democrats who take advantage of tax-exempt investments or available deductions to reduce their tax burden - why begrudge them for doing what they are permitted to do?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI hadn't realized that the Tea Party line was "government welfare-- okay for rural whites, not okay for anybody else".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, it's the votes that matter more than the "hypocrisy" of receiving the subs. However, we need to make sure these folks DO vote to cut them.
Good for Rep. Stuzman.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSupport the world as it should be, live in the world as it is.
So, in order to support the Tea Party you have to forgo $3m you'd otherwise be entitled to? No wonder the left always wins, there are no rules applicable to them except being caught with a dead girl or a live boy. And I'm not so sure about the latter anymore.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseABC News certainly wasn't upset over Sam Donaldson's farm subsidies a few years back. In fact, Donaldson's personal business was off limits. Oh, well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe government has no business doling out subsidies to anyone. I'll have a real problem if these reps don't vote to cut farm subsidies. It will be very disappointing if the Tea Party doesn't pressure them if they balk.
I don't have a problem with congressman who receive such subsidies, so long as the vote against extending the subsidies. As the one congressman said, the existence of these subsidies distort the market. When you are farming, you have to compete against farmers who are receiving the subsidies. In such a situation, often the only way to stay in business yourself is to also accept the subsidies.
That is the biggest evil of such subsidies, they force those who would follow their conscience out of business, while the less scrupulous thrive.
Anyone who votes to keep these subsidies needs to be condemned. That's what I care about, how they vote on the issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuselinearheights: Like most liberals, you have to turn everything into a racial battle.
Nobody has said anything about such subsidies being alright. We have said that we will not condemn those who are struggling to stay in business for taking advantage of programs that are helping their competitors.
We have said repeatedly that the critical thing is do they vote to get rid of them for everyone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs others have said, it's how they vote that matters.
Is ABC going to get tax returns of all the Democrats in Congress and do a story about how they obviously don't "pay their fair share" if they itemize deductions?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen liberals can't defend a position on the merits, play the "hypocrite" card. Never fails.
Farming has been so gummed up and perverted with government intervention it ceased being anything resembling a free market ages ago. So much so, BLS employment statistics measure only "nonfarm" jobs because farming is such a different animal. Reldim had it right, if this is the world that's been created for farmers, don't attack Tea Party members for refusing to put themselves in a competitive disadvantage by not playing along.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Griswel:
While he wasn't technically caught with her, events over 40 years ago suggests the former isn't true, either.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat happened to moral absolutes? When did conservatives turn into such relativists? If being a parasite upon the state is wrong, then it's always wrong, it doesn't matter if everybody is doing it or not.
How is the situation supposed to change, if our tea party heroes, who are supposed to free us from the chains of soul-sucking government socialism, turn out to be pigs at the trough, just as bad as anybody else?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuselinearheights: When govt puts you in a position where you have two choices, accept the subsidy, or go out of business, nobody is going to fault the guy who takes the subsidy.
Yes, subsidies are always bad, but the solution is to get rid of them, not get rid of those who have tried to do their best to survive in the system that govt created.
I'm still waiting for you to apologize for trying to insert race into an issue where it doesn't exist.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInvent a standard. check
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDeclare without evidence that this is the standard your opponents believe in. check
Declare that your opponents aren't living up to the standard that you just created. check
Declare that since your opponents are hypocrites, they can be safely ignored. check
RE: "What happened to moral absolutes? When did conservatives turn into such relativists? If being a parasite upon the state is wrong, then it's always wrong, it doesn't matter if everybody is doing it or not."
I don't care. We're not getting tripped up on the nitpicky nonsense.
As long as it ends, I don't care.
And, yes, by all means, if you're in favor of higher taxes you're *welcome* to pay more than you have to, but I don't expect you to.
And, yes, if Term Limits champions have to stay in office 5 terms to make it happen, that is fine, too. Does very little good when the proponents are lame ducks from day one.
Appreciate the attempt to stop the train, but all you're doing is putting pennies on the track. Cute results, but, ultimately, insignificant.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAccepting millions in government money to support lavish lifestyles, while at the same time demonizing the poor who are getting a pittance so they can eat.
Yep, that sums up most Republicans pretty well. Graft for wealthy white people: fine. Food stamps for poor people: WHY ARE THOSE SHIFTLESS PEOPLE TAKING MY MONEY. Medicaid for people suffering from cancer. GET THOSE LEECHES OFF THE GOVERNMENT TEAT.
It isn't just a matter of taking advantage of programs because they exist, although they are willing to cut them.
It is the fact that conservatives as a matter of course demonize the individuals who accept government assistance, and then do so themselves in far, far greater amounts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWUTHERINGheights:
You like, so totally don't grab the nub of the rub here against government largess.
It's not NEARLY as pointed against the beneficiaries as it is against the people - such as you - who advocate the largess (which consistently entails a corresponding derogation to the Constitution); and public officials who promulgate the trade-offs and choices that their policies create a very strong incentive for others to make, that they would NEVER opt to make for themselves.
When the government expands its own power and authority through the power of the purse, by dolling out ever-increasing political patronage handouts to an ever-increasing cross-section of society, thereby bribing people to give up more and more of their individual agency over their own circumstances and to forfeit the liberty they inherited, conservatives are grounded enough in practical reality to observe that the allure of the pernicious alloy of government hand-outs will be too irresistible for too many.
Actually, Wuthering, if we felt that this allure of government control and usurpation - which progressives incessantly demagogue as compassion - was easy to evade, then we wouldn't be so "morally" nor so "absolutely" opposed to the spread of its reach, now, would we?
Preened of eloquence, in other words: if these government spending programs had so few takers, I'm sure many conservatives would be inclined not to make such hey.
I hope that clarifies that it's YOU and YOUR ILK we're really fed up with, not the farmer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRE: "It is the fact that conservatives as a matter of course demonize the individuals who accept government assistance, and then do so themselves in far, far greater amounts."
The ire I have towards the food stamp nimrod who buys nothing but soda, Doritos, and bubblegum is nowhere near as strong as it is for the idiots that created the program, as such, in the first place. And that ire, in turn, pales in comparison to the contempt I have for people that attempt to call me a grinch for wanting to take away "nimrod"'s soda, Doritos, and bubblegum.
There's your chain.
That's right - Cash for Clunkers was a debacle from soup to nuts. But if they're going to throw stuff out there like that, I can't blame people for taking personal advantage.
You can't paint a raging bull into a corner - and that's exactly the persona the Cut Creators are going to have to adopt to get the job done.
I suppose next item up for bids is to have to take a political tendencies exam before being able to accept Pell Grants. After all, those should be reserved for only those that agree with the [broken] leftist ideology behind them. Their very existence has the net effect of jacking up tuition for *everybody*...to *not* take one when eligible is *IDIOTIC* when the playing field is as it is.
That is 100% correct. I will take delight in finding out the politician who whacked Pell Grants took one in college.
You. Yes, you, laddie. Quit being ridiculous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse