Keep up with the news by installing RT’s extension for . Never miss a story with this clean and simple app that delivers the latest headlines to you.

 

Rand Paul loses war to remove Larry Flynt's subsidies

Published time: June 20, 2012 20:31
Edited time: June 21, 2012 00:34
U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Reuters/Jonathan Ernst)

Porn mogul Larry Flynt has won a battle in Washington, but this time the Hustler magazine publisher wasn’t being smeared for peddling smut: Senator Rand Paul asked lawmakers to remove government subsidiaries for fellows such as Flynt.

Sen. Paul (R-Kentucky) was unsuccessful in having an amendment tacked on to the Farm Bill on Tuesday that would have been bad news for Flynt and a handful of other Americans who receive government subsidiaries for owning farms, despite being already substantially well-off. Sen. Paul was asking his fellow lawmakers to put a provision on the act that would limit subsidiaries for significantly wealthy farmers, name checking Flynt while appearing on Capitol Hill.

“A good question for the Senate might be, what do Scottie Pippen, Larry Flynt, and David Rockefeller have in common?" Paul asked his fellow lawmakers this week. "The answer would be that besides being very rich, they've all gotten farm subsidies in the past."

"Nine percent of farmers earn more than $250,000 worth of gross income," Paul added. "This would limit their payments. Currently nine percent of farmers are receiving nearly a third of the benefits."

The measure was defeated by a vote of 84 to 15 after Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) insisted that, not taking into account Sen. Paul’s amendment, the bill already limits subsidies for wealthy farmers. The farm bill cuts crop subsidies by $13 billion over a decade, reports Raw Story.

Stabenow said in a statement that, excluding Rand Paul’s proposal, America’s deficit could be reduced by as much as $23 billion by “eliminating unnecessary direct payment subsidies, consolidating programs to end duplication and cracking down on food assistance abuse.”

According to the Congressional Budget Office, Paul’s proposed amendment would have only saved a comparably insignificant $7 billion.

Comments (5)

UhOh (unregistered) 03.07.2012 20:18

While this seems like a good idea, it isn't. I live around a lot of farmland that is pressured by construction. Wealthier people buy land to preserve a way of life and a culture. They should should not be treated differently than someone else. It is the land use that gets the subsidy, to encourage the behavior of farm use. We should not write laws for rich people and laws for others. Rand Paul's thinking is flawed on this.

0

Undo

Steve (unregistered) 21.06.2012 20:13

You can stop promoting Rand Paul. Ron Paul supporters hate him because of his betrayal.

Sti ll this was a good law that should have passed. We shouldn't be giving rich people a subsidy like that.  You should post a link to a vote talley of all the Senators who voted against him on this so we can hold them accountable.

+3

Undo

Kapt Blasto (unregistered) 21.06.2012 00:39

(Continued from Previous)  >>>>>> Even if one could make the argument that these folks' OTHER activities recieving income, could be used to suppliment their farming activiy...there's also Government regulation on the books that can be looked at as prohibiting THAT with enough bureaucratic interpretation backing that up... >>>>>> And where LIBERALS might feel comfortable Taxing more of that OTHER ACTIVITY...the farming subsidy could be looked at as a sort of GIVEBACK, making the whole thing a Wash, offseting their TAX BITES >>>>>>and, again, if they're doing things that follow the LAW, and recieve the subsidy, that could be thought of as a way to offset the TAX BITE that they might be hit with from thier OTHER ACTIVITY(that other people are making thier money from, off that other activity that would preclude them "doing right" by them, and taking this venture to offset things), then, Dimitri, why would you want to be seen as wanting to "soak the rich?"

0

Undo

View all comments (5)
Add comment

By posting your comment, you agree to abide by our Posting rules

Log in to comment in full, or comment anonymously under character-limit restriction.

100 Text

– required fields

Register or

Name

Password

Show password

Register

or Register

Request a new password

Send

or Register

To complete a registration check
your Email:

or Register

A password has been sent to your email address

Edit profile

Name

New password

Retype new password

Current password

Save

Cancel

Follow us