This is what it looks like when a state moves from traditional GOP to Tea Party/Libertarian dominance. The tax cuts stay, the infrastructure remains in decline, but the attitude towards the poor and powerless shifts from not doing much to weaponized neglect. Governor Nathan Deal keeps a low profile in terms of saying Akins-level horseshit, but the results are undeniable.
The sad thing is that I read that whole (horrifically depressing) article, and the only thing that comes to mind is a sad certainty that to tea party/libertarian types, those outcomes are all working as intended.
I think by standard bill naming conventions, that would be "Right to Eat" in order to have a bill that proposes you lack the right to eat.
A well balanced Breakfast being necessary to the functioning of a free Organic Lifeform, the Right of the People to keep and bear Foodstuffs shall not be infringed. *not actually in the Constitution so you can pry my Wheaties from my COLD DEAD HANDS.
CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE! OUR FOUNDING FATHERS KNEW THE VALUE OF CORNMEAL! I was reminded of these charts (and ones similar) that were going around during election season showing the political leaning of states vs. their Federal aid. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps Then I remembered a site I found awhile back when talking about subsidies on OtherForum and it contains well-digested breakdowns of Federal farm subsidies. Georgia isn't particularly gratuitous (#16 among the states for the period 1995-2011) but in light of the OP it seems their views about food are not only grotesque morally but seriously distorted economically. http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=13000 (This whole thing is reminding me why I'm not super-opposed to Texas, Kansas, and Arizona seceding as well. But hey, different topic.)
