When Congress passed the farm bill recently, there were some who were complaining about its cost and impact. You might have wondered what the fuss was about since most of us believe that farmers deserve support from the government. That’s why I thought I might take a moment to explain why a farm bill was controversial to some people.

Let’s start with the cost: $1 trillion. Yes, that is one trillion with a capital T. Supporters are quick to point out the bill will also cuts $8 billion from the food stamp program over the next 10 years. The bill also makes changes in agricultural subsidies while building subsidies for crop insurance.

The comment about food stamps brings me to the next point. About 80 percent of the bill is funding for food stamps. Heritage expert Daren Bakst reports that, “food stamp spending has quadrupled since 2000 and doubled since 2008.” We are all willing to help those truly in need, but you do have to wonder about so many getting food stamps today.

I have found that most Americans are unaware of the fact that a typical farm bill is really a food stamp bill. I call it institutional log rolling.

You might remember from your civics class how politicians get someone to vote for their bill if they promise to vote for another bill. This is called “log rolling.” You could also call it quid pro quo. In the farm bill, it has been institutionalized. Legislators from farm communities vote for food stamps because it is in the farm bill. Legislators from urban areas vote for the farm bill because it funds food stamps. No one wants to vote against the bill, so it usually passes easily.

Once you understand how this bill is structured, you can see that often the problem isn’t with the member of Congress. The problem is with the way funding is structured. How many politicians are going to vote against a farm bill that also funds food stamps? Unless this procedure is changed, we will most likely see Congress pass many more bills like the farm bill