Thanks to Republican redistricting, this is my representative and, in fact, the congressman for about half (geographically) of Oklahoma:

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - Congressman Frank Lucas says President Barack Obama’s proposal to cut some government payments to farmers shows a lack of understanding of the agriculture industry.

During a speech to a joint session of Congress this week Obama proposed eliminating subsidies paid to farmers regardless of crop prices or yield.

Lucas says in a statement today that farmers and ranchers are struggling to make a living in the current economic crisis and with falling commodity prices.

Lucas says he’s sent a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack complaining about the president’s plan.

Of course, it appears that President Obama understands exactly how the agriculture industry works, and he's trying to change it. While Lucas invokes those "struggling to make a living" (implying the little family farmer), the truth is much different:

… the White House budget proposes the elimination of direct subsidy payments to farmers making more than $500,000 per year.

Emphasis added. Much of this money goes to huge corporate farms that don't need the money, not to family farms that might. The problem is that it won't help turn our food policy back in the right direction:

… the direct-payments program [that Obama is targeting], unlike some other agricultural subsidies, doesn’t really give farmers an incentive to overproduce. Farmers get a lump sum of money each year that’s calculated by multiplying their “base acreage”—the number of acres they historically planted in a certain crop—by the number of bushels of that crop they could expect to produce per acre times a fixed per-bushel subsidy rate. They get that lump-sum payment even if they plant a different crop, or no crop at all. The one big restriction on what they can do with the land is that they can’t use it to grow fruits or vegetables. (There’s a pilot program to lift this restriction for some farmers, but only on the condition that they sell their vegetables to a processing company, rather than letting them be consumed fresh—apparently the American public needs to be protected from eating too many fresh veggies.)

Emphasis added again. So, while eliminating some wasteful payments, the goverment would continue to pay farmers to grow more corn and soybeans (the crops we have way too much of, that lead to ways to use the food surplus like HFCS and unproductive ethanol) and continue to work to prevent them from making the foods we do need (fresh fruits and vegetables) cheaper. It's ridiculous that a pound of Oreo cookies costs less than a pound of bell peppers or a pound of carrots.

Yet as Rep. Lucas opposes token reductions in payments to big agribusiness, the AP article makes clear that he's not leaving Republican cant behind:

While Lucas wants subsidies to farmers protected he’s criticized Obama for advocating too much government spending.

After Obama’s speech to Congress, Lucas said, “we must all practice fiscal restraint—including the federal government.”

So, as usual, the Republican congressman wants to cut wasteful spending, just not to the huge corporations that fund his campaigns.

(Via OETA - The Oklahoma Network.)