Rather than alienate Americans from the freedom, perhaps the Bloomberg administration might attempt to work with the federal government and other groups to change the farm subsidy programs to reflect healthier eating habits.
The food and beverage industry has been relentless in Washington lately, more than doubling their spending in Washington during the past three years, completely outpacing public interest groups looking out for children's health.
The impact of more cuts on children and families who now receive a nutritionally adequate diet from SNAP would be devastating. Where is the justice in a vote to protect wealthy farmers over hungry children?
Water is running off poorly managed fields that have been treated with chemical fertilizers and manure is loaded with nitrogen and phosphorus, two potent pollutants that set off a cascade of harmful consequences.
Would critics of SNAP exhibit the same level of outrage if they learned that several Roby, Texas, cotton farmers shared a $46 million jackpot in 1996 and still receive hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece in federal subsidies for years after?
So here's my message to governments: What's taking you so long? By all means negotiate new targets and goals for 2020 or 2030, for example to improve energy efficiency and massively increase the share of renewable energy worldwide.
The last thing our country needs is a taxpayer-funded subsidy system that favors the very foods that contribute to heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. But that's exactly what key members in the House are standing behind.
In 2009, USDA spent more than twice as much buying meat and dairy as it did on fruits and vegetables. What that means is that the USDA used taxpayers' money to buy about $1.5 billion worth of meat and dairy.
Since being introduced to help cope with the Great Depression, farm subsidies have devolved into a hodgepodge of price supports, direct payments, insurance programs, tax loopholes and low-interest loans for wealthy farmers and agribusiness.