As I do most days, I started my morning off by reading the top stories at Colorado Politics. I’ll take the bold stand that you should too(there, that should make Dan the opinion editor happy) (Ed: yay!). I am looking for stories to inspire me to write and yesterday I didn’t have to go past the lead story to find my muse.

It seems the Farm Bill – a massive bit of five-year legislation that deals with agriculture and often much more, including food aid programs – passed the House and Senate overwhelmingly and is now headed to the president’s desk for a presumed signature. These days less than 2 percent of Americans live on farms, with about 3 million farmers, ranchers, and others directly working on agriculture. That is an amazing number and it shows how remarkable changes in technology now enable very few farmers to feed and supply a nation. My grandparents were farmers in Iowa, and I was very fortunate in spending many of my youthful summers on their farm, learning an appreciation of the land and of the role of the farmer in America. So, the Farm Bill is one bit of legislation that I’ve always paid a bit more attention to than most folks do. 

In Colorado, roughly 100,000 of our fellow citizens work in agriculture, with a majority of our crops coming in the form of cattle, dairy products, corn (for grain), and hogs and more. If you want to know how much sorghum silage we produce, the answer is 375,000 tons. It’s not the most important crop, but I think “sorghum silage” would be a great name for a band.

Anyway, back to the Farm Bill. It seems that while the majority of Colorado’s House delegation voted in favor of the bill, three of that number did not. Mr. Coffman, Mr. Lamborn, and Mr. Buck voted no, and it is reported that a major reason for that no vote was the lack of a requirement for those on food stamps to work at some job before they can get the benefit. Now, I get that there is dignity in work and that asking those getting government assistance to contribute back to the society that is helping them is not a bad idea. But I was troubled by some of the concerns, including Mr. Buck’s objection to the term “family” being extended to include first cousins, nieces and nephews and such. That seems mean to me and is part of what I find objectionable about the GOP’s attitude toward the poor.

My friends from the Republican side of the aisle appear to support programs for the poor grudgingly, and usually demand that some sort of humbling action accompany the payments. I’ve never been on food stamps or needed the government’s help to make ends meet (other than, of course, my 25-year military career and current retired Lt Colonel pension), but I’ve always felt charitable toward those who must seek such help. This “no” vote seems to be part of an overall conservative way of thinking that poverty is a human failing and that those who fail in this way are not just fellow Coloradans down on their luck but are somehow “lazy” people who refuse to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. 

We see restrictions on what products may be purchased, such as “junk food” or “luxury items” such as beer, wine,  and “hot foods” that are eaten immediately. Apparently, it’s also wrong for poor people to have a dog or a cat, because pet food is also on the forbidden list. Oh, and vitamins and medicines are also forbidden. 

The vote by the three GOP House members doesn’t surprise me, and at least it’s not as bad as some elected reps in New York, Missouri, and Wisconsin, where GOP legislators have pushed to prohibit those on welfare from buying soda, steak, and cookies, because, apparently, poor people shouldn’t have tasty things, ever. 

In a giant bill like the Farm Bill, there will be provisions that are objectionable to nearly every member of the House and Senate, because that’s what good compromise legislation looks like. Nobody gets everything they want, but overall, the bill works for most people. And again, the Colorado “no voters” were not objecting to a particular program. Rather, they were objecting to the lack of a properly humbling of those in need.  I’d only ask those gents if they truly believe that poverty is a life choice and a character weakness? And if it is not, perhaps they could walk a mile in those shoes before they argue that the poor should go barefoot.

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.