In the first half of our story uncovering the truth about farm subsidies entitled, “USDA’s Inadequate Management Controls Allow Large Corporations to Profit on Farm Subsidies,” we promised to bring you further information about some of the members of Congress whose families have been enjoying government farm subsidies while simultaneously voting down other legislation that they claim will raise the government deficit, that most notably being healthcare reform. We also promised an update on how President Obama is targeting certain agriculture programs such as the subsidy program and crop insurance in his efforts to trim wasteful spending in Washington.

First, let’s start with a story written by Yasha Levine and posted on December 22, 2009 on TruthDig that basically “outs” a few members of Congress as being on the government take (legally of course), yet going out of their way to paint President Obama as a socialist for the programs they deem government “handouts” such as the healthcare reform bill and foreclosure relief spending. While some will see this as old news, the fact that the very folks who are now fighting against “socialist spending” by Obama, have been taking government handouts for years when it came to their families’ farms.

Here is what Mr. Levine gleaned from data compiled by the non-partisan group known as Environmental Working Group:

Michele Bachmann (R-MN) – As first reported in 2007, Bachmann’s family farm, which was owned by her now deceased father-in-law, received $251,973 in federal subsidies between 1995 and 2006. The subsidies were for dairy and corn. According to Bachmann’s financial disclosure forms, her personal stake in the family farm is worth up to $250,000 and she has been earning income from the farm business as recently as 2008 up to as much as $50,000. Although it has been reported that Bachmann voted in 2007 against reauthorizing the farm subsidy bill, in actuality, she voted for the 2007 farm bill that would extend farm subsidies through 2012, but voted against an amendment to the bill  that would end subsidy payments to farms where the average adjusted gross income of the farm’s owners exceeds $250,000.   

Chuck Grassley (R-IA) – Sen. Grassley is just as outspoken, if not more so, than Michele Bachmann when it comes to calling President Obama a socialist, yet he openly admits a personal fondness for farm subsidies for his family, teaching his son and his grandson just how it is done. Over an 11-year period, he and his family have collected more than $1 million dollars in farm subsidy money, and there is nothing in his voting record to indicate that he wants the money to stop flowing to his farm. Hypocrisy in Grassley’s case is palpable as he sits on the Senate Finance Committee and makes it a point to call out most government spending as a move towards socialism.

Sam Brownback (R-KS) – Sen. Sam Brownback is yet another fine example of someone who finds it acceptable to be on the government dole as long as no one else is.  The Brownback family has also been quite fortunate in receiving nearly a half million dollars in government subsidies over the last 11 years. But if you ask him how he feels about healthcare reform? He’ll tell you he prays for it it. Yes, he prays for it to be killed in Congress because it is part of an evil socialist plan to bring down America. Evidently, government handouts to rich Americans, though, is perfectly in line with God’s plan.

Max Baucus (D-MT) – Not only did Sen. Baucus’ family farm collect $250,000 in farm subsidies over the years, but in 2007, as Senate Finance Committee Chairman, he introduced a plan to  Congress that would create a permanent provision in the 2007 Farm Bill to compensate farmers and ranchers for losses they might suffer due to natural disasters. Yet, Baucus was on the side of those who tried to derail the health care reform process as it would just be too costly.

And there are a few more Democrats like Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Rep. Sephanie Sandlin (D-SD) whose families made out quite well when it came to accepting government farm subsidies, but who also, when it came time to spread the wealth around to assure everyone would have a chance at affordable health care or being able to hang onto their family homes, or be able to have food to even feed their families, they just couldn’t see their way fit to vote that way.

Finally, with regard to President Obama’s proposed 2011 budget cuts in agriculture, a report in the online website, AgWeek sets forth these changes: increases in nutritional programs such as the school lunch programs, the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) food assistance program, and food stamps, while cutting aid to farmers by cutting crop insurance spending by $8 billion over 10 years and cutting subsidies to the largest farmers by $2.4 billion over 10 years. Farmers groups across the country think these cuts are a bad idea as do Senators Blanche Lincoln and Sam Brownback in particular. Although many are claiming that it is interesting that the cuts in the crop insurance funding as well as changes to the subsidy program will save just about the same amount of money that can go toward the increase in nutritional programs, the Obama administration claims that those cuts and increases were not planned that way.

So, we’re just going to have to wait and see how it all plays out because this is only a proposal for the budget, and according to Collin Peterson (D-MN), the House Agriculture Commission Committee Chairman, and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), the Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman, there is no interest in cutting farm bill programs.