FROM Catharine Richert
Income and Federal Subsidies Up for US Farmers Increased farm subsidies have made strange bedfellows of environmentalists and the Bush Administration. They agree that that the big federal money goes to big agri-business, at the expense of the little guys, not what subsidies were designed to do. Even the Wall Street Journal calls the Farm Bill a "millionaire safety net" which raises taxes to pay off the rich. What does it mean for the environment? What are the prospects of another "bubble" with results like those for dot-coms and housing?
Farm Bill's Distorted Economics and the Quality of Our Food Supply The Farm Bill dates back to the Depression and World War II, and it still reflects the priorities of those bygone days. The result is that $25 billion in subsidies have gone mostly to corporations and wealthy investors, many of whom are paid to grow nothing at all. Small farmers are driven out of business. Today, the House passed a new Farm Bill , worth $286 billion over the next five years, that includes $25 billion in crop subsidies. Yesterday, the House defeated an amendment that would have cut those subsidies and invest the money in conservation, nutrition, rural development and deficit reduction. What happened to promised reforms? To what extent does the Farm Bill determine what food Americans eat?
Trump's new look at civil rights and global warming President Trump is reportedly ready to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. We look at the possible consequences. On the second half of the program, we hear about cuts in Obama-Era civil rights programs called for by the Trump Administration's first budget plan.
Is the threat from Russia missing from the Russia meddling probe? There's much being made about the Trump administration's possible ties with Russia. But the bottom line is Russia's effort to influence American democracy. Do the President and his aides care enough to take action before voters go back to the polls?
Terrorism and tweets, hate speech and murder Just days before an election, Britain is coping with a rash of deadly terrorism, and Prime Minister Theresa May is on the defensive. And again today, President Trump has tweeted criticism of the Mayor of London. Later, a double murder in Portland, Oregon has revealed the ugly past of a supposedly “progressive” city. One immediate question: is “hate speech” protected by the First Amendment?