Link here to WSJ.
About every six weeks, Connie writes me to "complain" about farm subsidies to North Dakota farmers. Connie tells me she is a liberal. She has asked that I not post her comments, so I don't. I assume she will send me the above link.
As usual, the WSJ has a great graphic. And Connie is correct. North Dakota farmers get a lot of subsidies.
Check out the graphic. The WSJ uses relative size of circles over each state to depict relative amount of subsidies going to each state.
The first thing one notices is that most farm subsidies go to states where there is a lot of farming.
Okay, seriously.
The circle overlaying California is a small circle, about the size of the Los Angeles metropolitan area on the map.
The circle overlaying North Dakota is about 7/8ths the size of the state of North Dakota. There is a bit of North Dakota showing from outside the circle, but not much.
There is only one state in which the circle is bigger than the state: that most liberal of states -- IOWA. Yes, the circle overlaying Iowa completely covers Iowa as well as a bit of each surrounding state. There is only one other state that comes close to Iowa in overall size and almost obliterating out the state itself: that most liberal of states - ILLINOIS.
That most liberal of states -- MINNESOTA -- is in the same mix as IOWA and ILLINOIS. President Clinton's home state is almost completely obliterated by the circle and is about the same size as the North Dakota circle.
You know, on second thought, I don't think Connie will send me the link. She has no problem with Iowa getting subsidies, only North Dakota.
I do not know if subsidies for ethanol are part of the IOWA subsidy program but I assume they are. But maybe not. The picture caption suggests "direct payments to farmers."
Most disturbing: how little (relatively) the southern states (except for Texas) get in subsidies. [The circles in Massachusetts and Maine are microscopic.]
