Another “Temporary” Spending Bill That Still Costs Americans 93 Years Later
Another “Temporary” Spending Bill That Still Costs Americans 93 Years Later
Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) February 16, 2026
In January 1933, a farmer named Wallace Kramp was about to lose everything. A lender in Wood County, Ohio was foreclosing on his farm over an $800 mortgage he couldn't pay.
Kramp wasn't a bad farmer. It was actually the government’s fault: during World War I, the US government had urged farmers to plant as much as they could to feed the troops and war-torn Europe.
Families like the Kramps borrowed money and used the loan proceeds to expand production. But then the war ended; European agriculture recovered, and demand for US agriculture vanished. But the American farmers’ debts didn't.
By the early 1930s, wheat that had sold for $2 a bushel during the war was going for 25 cents. Nearly 750,000 farms went bankrupt between 1930 and 1935.
These weren't giant agribusinesses. They were small, family farms.
Kramp, at least, got lucky. On January 26th 1933, his assets were up for bankruptcy auction... and Kramp's neighbors showed up to bid a combined total of $14. Then they handed everything back to him so that he could keep his property.
But most farmers weren't so lucky, and they lost everything.
That's why, a few months later, Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. The idea was to pay farmers to reduce production, prop up crop prices, and keep family farmers on their lands.
The original budget was $100 million— about $2.5 billion in today's dollars— and it was supposed to be a temporary measure.
That was 93 years ago.
But, big surprise, the "temporary" program never went away. And the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 evolved into the modern farm bill— a sprawling piece of legislation that Congress renews every five years, now costing roughly $1.5 trillion per decade.
More importantly, the struggling family farmers it was meant to protect have been replaced by massive agricultural conglomerates.
For example, they receive billions to grow corn. And that subsidized corn flows into the processed food supply— much of it as high-fructose corn syrup which ends up in practically everything Americans eat and drink.
The modern farm bill then funds SNAP benefits (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, aka food stamps) for more than 40 million people.
Ironically, soft drinks— full of that high fructose corn syrup— are the single largest category of SNAP purchases.
Processed foods have fueled epidemic levels of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. The United States spends nearly $5 trillion per year on healthcare, with the government picking up roughly two-thirds of the tab through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.
So taxpayers subsidize Big Ag’s corn production. Then further subsidize the purchase of junk food made from that corn. Then further subsidize the medical care for Americans who become unhealthy from all of that processed food.
This is what I'd call the government spending spiral— a self-reinforcing doom loop where each dollar spent justifies even more spending.
And this isn’t even the most corrosive layer of the spending spiral... because at every step, the industries involved— agricultural conglomerates, food manufacturers, healthcare providers, insurance companies— lobby Congress to keep the money flowing.
PepsiCo alone spent $2.8 million last year lobbying to keep their highly processed junk food eligible for food stamps.
You can see the pattern— these companies benefit from ample taxpayer funded subsidies, then recycle a portion of those proceeds back into the political machine to prop up the candidates who vote in favor of those subsidies.
This is why Congress— with an approval rating under 15%— somehow maintains a 90%+ reelection rate for incumbents: their campaigns are funded by the very graft that they vote for!
The federal government now spends roughly $7 trillion per year— roughly double from ten years ago.
What exactly did Americans get for the extra trillions in government spending? Are roads smoother? Schools better? Healthcare more affordable?
None of the above. In fact, despite a 100% increase in spending, schools, healthcare, and infrastructure have all become worse.
It’s truly staggering how much all of this spending is creating a drag on the US economy.
But it works both ways: cutting spending and eliminating subsidies reverses the spiral and moves things in the right direction.
Last week we told you that RFK Jr. helped to eliminate junk food subsidies in several states. And Pepsi— suddenly devoid of a government teet to suckle— responded by slashing prices to make up that lost revenue.
In other words, they cut subsidies and prices fell. Immediately.
It’s amazing to think how a "temporary" farm program from 1933 is still costing American taxpayers 93 years later.
Just imagine what would happen if the spiral ran the other way.
To your freedom, James Hickman Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC