Don’t take the post count personal, Mike. I think people here are offended with the facts not the messenger. ;)

See also:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/30/report...

http://theweek.com/article/index/248078/...

From The Washington Post here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...
"This week, House Republicans passed a rather unusual farm bill. There was no money for food stamps for the poor, a program that typically makes up the bulk of these bills. But the House did manage to pass billions in subsidies for farmers and agribusinesses.

Ideology probably can’t explain this vote — at least not entirely. Most outside conservative groups were aghast at the crop insurance and commodity supports, which will cost taxpayers some $195 billion over 10 years. Yet House Republicans actually made the farm aid more generous — by adding a new shallow loss income entitlement program, tossing in new protections for sugar production and ensuring that price supports for crops don’t sunset in 2018.

This raises a question: Why are lawmakers so willing to vote for farm subsidies — even lawmakers who usually oppose government spending? After all, only a small fraction of the U.S. population even farms anymore.

One theory is that money explains it all. Wealthy agribusinesses are somehow paying off Republicans to vote their way. “Republicans demonstrated that they are just fine with bloated welfare programs as long as those welfare payments go to well-heeled special interests,” wrote Michael Tanner of Cato. Over at the Atlantic, Derek Thompson proffered a similar theory, citing research showing that lawmakers are more likely to favor the rich.

Not everyone’s convinced by this, though. In a recent working paper (pdf), Duke University economist Marc Bellemare and political scientist Nicholas Carnes came up with a better reason for Congress’s ag-subsidy love. Farmers and farm owners have disproportionate political sway in key districts."