VANDERBILT POLITICAL REVIEW
DOMESTIC
Dinner table politics
With SNAP and farm subsidies, politics trumps reason
T
he immense divide between Republicans and Democrats set the
stage for the government shutdown
of the past year, sparking a public denunciation of how political posturing trumped
practical leadership. However, the growing chasm between political ideals has
been warping policy for years. The best
example comes in a study of the changing role of food programs. Historically,
the United States subsidized farmers and
consumers for nutritional necessity, economic stability, and national defense.
Now, in light of increasing political polarization and the evolution of career politicians, the main food programs serve new
purposes. Farm subsidies cost the American public millions of dollars and help
ensure politicians’ reelections, while the
more economically-friendly SNAP (commonly known as food stamps) is trivialized and attacked for rhetorical reasons.
Farm subsidies and nutritional assistance such as SNAP have roots in the
1930s. In 1933, Congress introduced the
Agricultural Adjustment Act. The government paid farmers to keep a percentage of
their land crop-free to reduce the market
surplus and also paid for the excess crops
produced. The hope was by removing
food from the market, prices would rise
and reduce farmer poverty. Five years
later, the farm bill became permanent.
Subsidies ran similarly until 1996, when
Congress allowed markets to determine
farm income. A sudden drop in commodity prices forced the government to
reinstitute subsidies in the form of direct
payment to farmers. In an effort to flout
international trade laws, eligible farmers
now receive support checks based on crop
yield data and acreage from the 1980s.
The original Agricultural Adjustment Act
8
by ALISON SHANAHAN ‘15
included nutritional support programs, but
beginning in the late 1930s, the legislative underpinnings of farm subsidies and
nutritional support programs diverged.
The first incarnation of SNAP was the
United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA)-run Food Stamp Program (FSP)
established in 1939. FSP ran from 1939
to 1943. There was an eighteen year absence of nutritional assistance until Kennedy reestablished food stamps in 1961.
After a series of legislative changes, the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) emerged in its current form.
Although the Agricultural Adjustment
Act was intended to be temporary, both
food programs have become permanent.
The two are often defended as tools of
economic growth. On a basic level, they
operate in the same way. By pumping the
economy full of federal dollars, aggregate
consumption increases. During the Depression, aid kept cash flowing in rural farming areas and kept small farmers afloat.
In cities, the starving had access to food.
As time went on, farm subsidies guarded
against bad weather and price fluctuations.
Food stamps kept impoverished families
fed and have continued to do so until the
present day. Moreover, farm subsidies are
arguably important for purposes of national security. The New York Times issued a
series of short essays to debate the topic
in 2010; one contributor, Keith Dittrich,
chairman of the American Corn Growers
Association, found farm subsidies important for defense purposes. In war, the
United States will not be able to import
enough food to feed Americans, or export
enough food to feed soldiers stationed
abroad. Farm supports are necessary to
keep farmers in business in down times
to ensure (in case of apocalyptic warfare)
all Americans will be fed. In contrast,
Brian Reidl of the Heritage Foundation
notes that crops that do not receive subsidies, such as fruits and vegetables, continue to be produced in the United States.
Reidl is one of many who tak