The Total Failure Of The War On Poverty

[Woodsman]

Re: The Total Failure Of The War On Poverty

Okay, vt. I'm throwing in the towel. They're all liberal except Fox. It's just like that.

"See you tomorrow, Sam."

[lektrode]

Re: The Total Failure Of The War On Poverty

Okay, vt. I'm throwing in the towel.....

yeah yeah yeah - somehow eye doubt it....

;)

but then theres THIS:



seen just now over at ZH (ooops! i almost said 0cred...)

and just another indicator of THE FAILURE of the sausage factory - and while we can go on blamin the oligarchs, i still say its the political class that is to blame - and the primary metric is the level of intensity of focus on RE-ELECTION - at the expense of policy = sell out to the highest bidder, to give away the treasury, to secure the razor-thin sliver of margin of 'victory' - at ALL COSTS - while accomplishing as little as possible, in an effort to maintain the status-quo

and THE ONLY WAY TO FIX IT ?

well... i get tired of being a 1-trick pony, too, woody.

personally speaking tho - its comin up on 5oclock somewhere, the wx is lookin up/good and i've discovered a new mixer = fabulous with gordons

[EJ]

Re: The Total Failure Of The War On Poverty

For a serious, fact-filled analysis of poverty in the US I recommend:

Poverty in the United States: 2012
Thomas Gabe
Specialist in Social Policy
Congressional Research Service
November 13, 2013

Below is a chart from that paper with my comments.

The data are hard to argue with. The first 13 years of the War on Poverty succeeded in reducing the poverty rate by half.

Note that before the FIRE Economy era, recessions had little impact on the poverty rate even though increases in
unemployment were as high as produced by recessions thereafter.

The poverty rate today is where it was 30 years ago after the two recessions of the early 1980s that launched the FIRE Economy.

I don't see a failure of government to eradicate poverty, I see a failure of economic policy. An economy oriented around
the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate industries has done little to help reduce poverty. Crashing the economy up and down
every ten years is ratcheting the poverty rate upwards.

I expect that after the next recession, before 2018, the poverty rate will be percentage-wise back where it was in 1960, in the low 20s.

Europe's models are no better and Asia isn't leading the way out, either.

A new model is needed and the US needs to lead.

[Rajiv]

Re: The Total Failure Of The War On Poverty

You should also add in the following to your thinking - Taken from - http://mythfighter.com/

Then there’s this from the Census Bureau:

How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty

The Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty.

The official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated for inflation using Consumer Price Index (CPI-U).

So the same income — $23,492 for a family of four — defines poverty in Manhattan and poverty in Mississippi? Interesting to learn that it costs no more to live in America’s most expensive locations than in America’s least expensive locations.

But it gets even more interesting:

The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps).

The spending to which the Heritage Foundation says does nothing to help the poor, is not even included in the definition of poverty.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: The Total Failure Of The War On Poverty

Why FDR Did Not End the Great Depression – and Why Obama Won’t End This One

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/...-end-this-one/

[Polish_Silver]

Are Rector's facts wrong?

Puh-leeze. Looking to Heritage - and especially a pr*ck like Rector - for help on solving issues of poverty is like putting a pimp in charge of an all girls school.

Not even government, though, can spend $9,000 per recipient a year and have no impact on living standards. And it shows: Current poverty has little resemblance to poverty 50 years ago. According to a variety of government sources, including census data and surveys by federal agencies, the typical American living below the poverty level in 2013 lives in a house or apartment that is in good repair, equipped with air conditioning and cable TV. His home is larger than the home of the average nonpoor French, German or English man. He has a car, multiple color TVs and a DVD player. More than half the poor have computers and a third have wide, flat-screen TVs. The overwhelming majority of poor Americans are not undernourished and did not suffer from hunger for even one day of the previous year.

Woodsman, do you dispute this paragraph? I cannot say either way. I do not see enough poor people to know.

I did once hear a public health nurse say that there is little to no hunger problem in this country. In this country the low income people are the most massive. That is not true in India.

So is there data that many US citizens are hungry?

Is rector correct that the poverty designation does not include welfare?

Are the homes of poor people in this country smaller than the homes of poor in France, Germany, or England?

[Polish_Silver]

No jobs for the poor

Interesting take Woodsman.

Sometimes I just shake my head. To anyone who has grown up in an area of extreme and/or chronic poverty the article posted rings hollow. It really does. You know immediately that Robert Rector knows of it only at arms length? Why? Because to anyone who grew up knowing what causes most of it there is no mystery at all as to why poverty has continued or even gotten worse. We know. As a matter of fact I'll go you one further: We (as a nation) chose to take this course through policy choices. Maybe it was a bill of goods that we swallowed. Maybe we were hoodwinked.

But the fact remains that we chose to make poverty worse and throw those on the edge into it.

How? By systematically lowering the quality of job that our economy produces. This was done through many means I'll grant you. Putting labor in direct competition with those who have lower labor, environmental, etc standards. Actively pursuing a strong dollar policy that allows a chronic and ongoing trade deficit. Allowing VAT and other market barriers by other countries while abandoning any protection for US labor. By actively changing the balance of power between that of labor/capital and that of capital/government. The list goes on an on.

We bludgeoned the nascent black middle class like a baby seal. We destroyed the union/coal powered Appalachian middle class soon thereafter. Next came the steel industry. Then the ship producing industry. Then the airplane industry. Now we are getting around to the car industry. In case after case we have systematically sought out and destroyed areas of blue collar middle class.

What exactly did the geniuses in charge think would happen to those who would have worked in these industries? Just quietly take their place in a corner, stop breeding, and wait for their allotted time to die?

Anyone who speaks of poverty and never mentions a jobs/industrial policy is a fraud. And his work is a joke.

Will

I agree that there are fewer opportunities for people with less education and skills, and this is problem of first rank for the country.

There are several reasons for this, not all amenable to policy decisions.

The advance of technology /automation should not be (or cannot be) stopped in my opinion.

Some american industries decayed due to bad leadership. Particularly the automotive industry, and to some extent the steel industry. Detroit did not have a good quality small car in the 1970s. I blame the labor unions to some extent, too, but primarily the corporate executives.

However, that still leaves Trade policy, dollar policy, etc. I don't think "strong dollar" is the problem. I think "chronic trade deficit" is part of the problem. How can you say the dollar is strong when purchasing power of the dollar declines every year?

I think higher interest rates would have done a lot to keep debt levels down and constrain the trade deficit.

If free trade has taken away jobs here, has it not added them somewhere else?

But I agree that US public policy should favor US citizens, not "world citizens" .

[Polish_Silver]

FIRE or OIL

For a serious, fact-filled analysis of poverty in the US I recommend:

Poverty in the United States: 2012
Thomas Gabe
Specialist in Social Policy
Congressional Research Service
November 13, 2013

Below is a chart from that paper with my comments.

The data are hard to argue with. The first 13 years of the War on Poverty succeeded in reducing the poverty rate by half.

Note that before the FIRE Economy era, recessions had little impact on the poverty rate even though increases in
unemployment were as high as produced by recessions thereafter.

The poverty rate today is where it was 30 years ago after the two recessions of the early 1980s that launched the FIRE Economy.

I don't see a failure of government to eradicate poverty, I see a failure of economic policy. An economy oriented around
the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate industries has done little to help reduce poverty. Crashing the economy up and down
every ten years is ratcheting the poverty rate upwards.

I expect that after the next recession, before 2018, the poverty rate will be percentage-wise back where it was in 1960, in the low 20s.

Europe's models are no better and Asia isn't leading the way out, either.

A new model is needed and the US needs to lead.

Recessions since 1972 caused a bigger bump in the poverty rate. Couldn't that mean that oil shock recessions hit the poor harder than earlier types?

I don't see the connection between interest rates, asset price inflation, and the poverty rate, unless it is the general question of suffocating the real economy.

[vt]

Re: FIRE or OIL

I thought the War on Poverty started in January, 1964. By that time Kennedy's tax cuts had cut unemployment significantly. Reagan's tax cuts also seemed to coincide with the beginning of an employment boom. But Bush's tax cuts, since we were well into FIRE, had little effect. The key is that tax cuts help to create jobs; government spending does little.

My take is that tax cuts can help, but FIRE is a hindrance.

[Penguin]

Re: The Total Failure Of The War On Poverty

The poverty rate today is where it was 30 years ago after the two recessions of the early 1980s that launched the FIRE Economy.

I don't see a failure of government to eradicate poverty, I see a failure of economic policy. An economy oriented around
the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate industries has done little to help reduce poverty. Crashing the economy up and down
every ten years is ratcheting the poverty rate upwards.

I expect that after the next recession, before 2018, the poverty rate will be percentage-wise back where it was in 1960, in the low 20s.

Europe's models are no better and Asia isn't leading the way out, either.

A new model is needed and the US needs to lead.

Very good points EJ, it is good to see you weigh in.

I believe I agree with what you have written although I see, and use terms, that come from a different background. To my way of thinking, many of the policies that you reference as the way in which FIRE was enabled are the same ones that I see as drawing a target on the back of the industrial base. And to my mind you cannot even think about reducing poverty when you cut off the first few legs of the ladder which would allow them to escape it. And the best of those legs are goods producing blue collar jobs in an environment where the power balance between labor and capital is not artificially skewed.

It is easy for a jackass like Robert Rector to sit back and slice and dice poverty and come up with his own self serving justifications for why it is the fault of those who live their lives at the bottom. And who knows, in some areas he may be entirely correct. But having watched real live poverty expand and flourish from relatively tame levels in my own hometown, area, and region taught me a few things about its causes. And I don't see word one in the article about what I saw firsthand.

Everyone speaks of the recession of 1980 in relatively benign terms. To those of us who lived through it in the coalfields it was excrutiating. If, like myself, you were a kid, it was terrifying. The long term effects have been catastrophic.

My hometown was a mix of smalltime farmers and stock growers, coal miners, timber stiffs, and the like for the most part. You have a mix of normal small town jobs thrown in and, as the interstate system was ~finally~ being completed through our region, you have an outsized group of teamsters, heavy equipment operators, carpenters, and other skilled labor. You always had poverty in Appalachia, but for the most part folks had decent jobs, a bit of security, and what would be called a normal standard of living. The recession of 1980, and the coal bust that accompanied it changed all of that.

First there were layoffs. Then more layoffs. Then came the permanent layoffs as the system realized that this might not be a regular hiccup. Then came the bankruptcies. Then the consolidations. Then the pension shortfalls and the renegotiations. The economic infrastructure surrounding the coal industry started to crumble. In short time the system ground to a hault. And 30 odd years later it has never recovered.

It was a humbling sight, seeing the pillars of your community fall into this abyss. Decades later I cannot get the image of all of those proud, hard working men standing shamefaced in circles as their wives stood solemnly in line outside the town hall for government handouts of cheese, bread, and milk. They would avoid looking up as the school bus drove past. It was ghastly and anyone who saw it firsthand knows what I mean.

In the end the system came to equilibrium (what the economists now call recovery) by a tried and true method: exodus. For many of us there just was no other choice. You got an education if you could, as dependable a car as you could lay hands on if you couldn't, and when your time came you made tracks. This repeated year after year until you finally have a local economy that can be supported by the remaining incomes. Effectively you end up blowing a demographic hole in the population. You have lots of pensioners, a few goods producing jobs, a few government industries, and whatever can be pieced together around that. Walking around these towns a question begins to intrude on your consciousness: Where the hell is everyone from 30 to 50 years of age? The answer? Gone years since.

It only takes a road trip a few hours up I-79 from the coalfields of eastern Kentucky and southern WV to Pittsburgh to lay eyes on the next group of victims. The steelworkers got theirs shortly thereafter (lots of capital investment and it took a while for the system to take them out and allow a skewed global trade system to replace them). Jump on I-80 and you can see a bunch more in Youngstown and Cleveland. A few hours westward and you can follow the trail of destruction up to Detroit and see what Armegeddon really looks like. The towns that the auto industry build lying in ruins.

It all boils down to one word: Jobs.

When you actively pursue a policy that destroys not only individual jobs but entire industries wholesale and the way of life that accompanies them guess what happens? It works. You actually do destroy those jobs, industries, and ways of life that they enabled. When your government builds a system that makes everything outside the FIRE economy a global zero sum game guess what happens? It works. That beautiful muscle bound industrial base that built the middle class dutifully takes its place in the race to the bottom and before long has more holes in it than a horse trader's mule.

And after you have experienced it firsthand? Listening to an asshole like Robert Rector spout nonsense about everything but the real reason poverty has stubbornly persisted and expanded is like listening to a herd of cats spinning their wheels on a dry chalkboard. A man wants to grab this condescending piece of pundit, strip him of privilege and wealth and toss him into the coalfields of southern WV, the dreary streets of downtown Pittsburgh, or the apocalyptic scenes of downtown Detroit and see how he fares. Nothing else, just strip him entirely of privilege, prevent him from leaving town, and see how this guy fares.

The results would be eye opening I am sure. And maybe, just ~maybe~ he could come up with something more plausible than 'grab a bootstrap and get to work!'

Will

[Penguin]

Re: No jobs for the poor

I agree that there are fewer opportunities for people with less education and skills, and this is problem of first rank for the country.

There are several reasons for this, not all amenable to policy decisions.

The advance of technology /automation should not be (or cannot be) stopped in my opinion.

Some american industries decayed due to bad leadership. Particularly the automotive industry, and to some extent the steel industry. Detroit did not have a good quality small car in the 1970s. I blame the labor unions to some extent, too, but primarily the corporate executives.

However, that still leaves Trade policy, dollar policy, etc. I don't think "strong dollar" is the problem. I think "chronic trade deficit" is part of the problem. How can you say the dollar is strong when purchasing power of the dollar declines every year?

I think higher interest rates would have done a lot to keep debt levels down and constrain the trade deficit.

If free trade has taken away jobs here, has it not added them somewhere else?

But I agree that US public policy should favor US citizens, not "world citizens" .

A

[Prazak]

Re: The Total Failure Of The War On Poverty

In the end the system came to equilibrium (what the economists now call recovery) by a tried and true method: exodus. For many of us there just was no other choice. You got an education if you could, as dependable a car as you could lay hands on if you couldn't, and when your time came you made tracks. This repeated year after year until you finally have a local economy that can be supported by the remaining incomes. Effectively you end up blowing a demographic hole in the population. You have lots of pensioners, a few goods producing jobs, a few government industries, and whatever can be pieced together around that. Walking around these towns a question begins to intrude on your consciousness: Where the hell is everyone from 30 to 50 years of age? The answer? Gone years since.

Much the same happened in my hometown when the coal mines were shuttered and the transportation and small industrial production supporting it went away. Sad to see an old (by U.S. standards) proud town full of hard-working prairie folks brought low.

One additional development brought the awful, ironic coup de grace to our little historic downtown (now half-shuttered): the arrival of a Super Walmart on the edge of town. It's sad to go there and see half the town choking on free trade.

For the life of me I don't understand the substance or tone of people like Rector and the politicians (almost universally on the right and in the Republican Party) who now hasten to declare War on the War on Poverty. And when I hear such toxic rubbish I find it hard to accept the "pox on both houses" argument that there is no substantive difference between the two political parties.

[lektrode]

Re: The Total Failure Of The War On Poverty

wish i had something to add to this will - but its a 'tough act to follow' - its also why i cringe near every time i hear pert near any of the political class - on either side of the aisle, but esp the lib-dems - start to talk about how their latest grand scheme is somehow going to help We, The People - when as your very well done overview of the reality of their LIES makes it clear the political class is only out to help themselves - esp when all their grand schemes are is just another short-term ploy to help THEM get re-elected - or take another ride thru the revolving door - while they continue to give away the treasury, pandering to ever smaller slivers of the electorate to achieve their latest 51.8% margin of 'victory'

TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS is still the best way to fix THE MESS THEY HAVE CREATED.

[Penguin]

Re: No jobs for the poor

The strong dollar policy isn't about inflation it is about exchange rates. And oil. Always oil because of the tie between the strong dollar and the reserve currency status. Both are enablers of a chronic trade deficit because they short circuit the way the system (theoretically) would correct this imbalance: a loss in currency strength which would enable cheaper exports.... and a lowering of the trade deficit.

When you talk about this connection it is important I think to be precise in your aim. Not sure a shotgun approach will explain much. But looking at individual countries that maintain an export surplus with the US and seeing how the exchange rate is managed between the two nations provides a much clearer picture.

As far as the auto industry in the 70s? The US had some problems no doubt of that. But I cannot remember a US single company having a reputation that was so sullied that they had to change their name. (I'm looking at you Nissan.) Looking at Toyos and Datsun's on the dealer lot with rust coming through their months old factory paint job is something that always brings a smile to my face when I hear about how good quality they were. But they did have higher mileage and that mattered a bunch in the 70s. The weak Yen policy allowed a continual eating away at the US auto industry. If you have any doubts of that ask yourself why they have refused to allow any strength in that currency for decades now.

In the end the strong dollar policy and the reserve currency status were pursued to maintain cheap oil. And we traded our industrial base to do it.

And as for jobs? Hell yes. Global trade has added millions upon millions of good producing jobs. Elsewhere.

Will

[Woodsman]

Re: Are Rector's facts wrong?

Woodsman, do you dispute this paragraph? I cannot say either way. I do not see enough poor people to know.

I did once hear a public health nurse say that there is little to no hunger problem in this country. In this country the low income people are the most massive. That is not true in India.

So is there data that many US citizens are hungry?

Is rector correct that the poverty designation does not include welfare?

Are the homes of poor people in this country smaller than the homes of poor in France, Germany, or England?

I don't dispute it, PS. I reject it entirely. Boil it down and the fundamental view is the poor have too much and can do with less and so can working and middle class Americans. The only people who deserve more are the wealthy. And boy are they getting it!

For instance, at the close of the last session a majority of Republicans and a fair number of Democrats voted to cut billions from food stamp programs while maintaining billions in subsidies to corporate agriculture interests and rich absentee farmers - including several members of Congress and our new Secretary of the Treasury (and several of her kin) recently appointed by our socialist, liberal president.

So in the cruel, twisted logic of Heritage and Rector, giving a subsidy to the poor is immoral and wasteful because they might use the cash to buy consumer electronics. But there are no moral qualms about giving subsidies to billionaires.

Here's a list of billionaires who received farm subsidies between 1995 and 2012. Of note is the DeVos family, early and present financial benefactors of the Heritage Foundation.

Name	Source of Farm Subsidies
Paul Allen Net worth: $15.8 billion #26 on Forbes 400	Kona Residence Trust, which received $14,429 in barley subsidies from 1996 to 2006.
Philip Anschutz Net worth: $10.3 billion #38 on Forbes 400	Clm Company, which received $553,323 in cotton, wheat, sorghum, corn, oat, barley and other farm subsidies from 1995 to 2003. Equus Farms, which received $53,191 in livestock subsidies in 2002.
John Arrillaga Net worth: $1.8 billion #314 on Forbes 400	Peery & Arrillaga, which received $59,711 in wheat, sorghum, corn, barley, safflower and other farm subsidies from 1995 to 2006.
Lee Bass Net worth: $2.1 billion #260 on Forbes 400	Panther City Cattle Company, which received $823,129 in cotton, wheat, corn and sorghum subsidies from 2000 to 2007. El Coyote Ranch, which received $297,950 in wheat, sorghum, corn, soybean, oat and barley subsidies from 1995 to 2002.
Riley Bechtel Net worth: $3.4 billion #143 on Forbes 400	Fremont Investors, which received $484,283 in rice and other farm subsidies from 1995 to 2003.
Stephen Bechtel, Jr. Net worth: $3.4 billion #143 on Forbes 400	Fremont Investors, which received $484,283 in rice and other farm subsidies from 1995 to 2003. Wild Goose Club, which received $947 in farm subsidies from 2006 to 2010.
Eli Broad Net worth: $6.9 billion #59 on Forbes 400	Placer Ranch Partners LP, which received $56,880 in wheat and rice subsidies from 1995 to 2005.
S. Truett Cathy Net worth: $6 billion #68 on Forbes 400	Rock Ranch LLC, which received $4,536 in livestock subsidies in 2003.
Gayle Cook Net worth: $5.2 billion #85 on Forbes 400	Cedar Farm Harrison County Inc., which received $41,141 in soybean, corn and tobacco subsidies from 1998 to 2003.
Richard DeVos Net worth: $6.8 billion #60 on Forbes 400	Ada Holdings LLC, which received $37,986 in corn, wheat and soybean subsidies from 2001 to 2006.
Charles Ergen Net worth: $12.5 billion #32 on Forbes 400	Telluray Ranch, which received $117,826 in crop and livestock disaster payments from 2002 to 2008.
Gerald J. Ford Net worth: $1.9 billion #296 on Forbes 400	Rio Hondo Land & Cattle Co. Inc., which received $222,433 in wool subsidies from 1995 to 2003.
Harold Hamm Net worth: $12.4 billion #33 on Forbes 400	$26,785 in wheat subsidies and disaster payments from 1995 to 2002. Continental Resources of Illinois, which received $318 in disaster payments, corn and soybean subsidies from 2003 to 2004.
Diane Hendricks Net worth: $4.4 billion #103 on Forbes 400	H&H Farms of Wisconsin Inc., which received $379,933 in corn, soybean, wheat, oat and other farm subsidies from 1998 to 2001.
Ray Lee Hunt Net worth: $5.6 billion #74 on Forbes 400	Sharyland Limited Partnership, which received $110,270 in cotton, sorghum, sunflower and corn subsidies from 1998 to 2000. Hunt Oil Co., which received $49,381 in livestock subsidies in 2002.
Paul Tudor Jones, II. Net worth: $3.7 billion #130 on Forbes 400	Buck Ridge Farms LLC, which received $8,260 in crop disaster payments, cotton, soybean, sorghum and corn subsidies from 1998 to 2003. Tudor Farms Inc., which received $1 in sorghum subsidies in 1996.
George Kaiser Net worth: $10 billion #40 on Forbes 400	Kaiser-Francis Oil Company, which received $17,518 in wheat, sorghum and barley subsidies from 1996 to 2003.
Jim Kennedy Net worth: $6.7 billion #61 on Forbes 400	$37,162 in rice, corn, sorghum, wheat, soybean, sunflower and other farm subsidies from 1996 to 2004. York Woods At Yonkapin Cutoff LLC, which received $19,545 in rice, sorghum and soybean subsidies from 2002 to 2003.
Henry Kravis Net worth: $4.7 billion #95 on Forbes 400	M&T Chico Ranch, which received $511,633 in wheat, rice, corn, sorghum, sunflower, safflower, barley and other farm subsidies from 1995 to 2005. M&T Staten Ranch, which received $502,363 in corn and wheat subsidies from 1996 to 2002.
Ann Walton Kroenke Net worth: $4.7 billion #95 on Forbes 400	JL Walton Trust, which received $13,273 in corn, wheat, sorghum, soybean and oat subsidies from 1996 to 2002. St. Roberts Centers & Farms, which received $6,642 in corn, wheat, sorghum and soybean subsidies from 1996 to 2002. $378 in corn and sorghum subsidies in 1995.
Leonard Lauder Net worth: $7.6 billion #56 on Forbes 400	Horizon Organic Dairy Idaho Farm, which received $360,102 in wheat, diary, barley, corn and other farm subsidies from 1997 to 2004. Horizon Organic Dairy Maryland Farm, which received $202,088 in dairy, corn, soybean, wheat and other farm subsidies from 1998 to 2005.
Nancy Walton Laurie Net worth: $4 billion #110 on Forbes 400	JL Walton Trust, which received $13,273 in corn, wheat, sorghum, soybean and oat subsidies from 1996 to 2002. St. Roberts Centers & Farms, which received $6,642 in corn, wheat, sorghum and soybean subsidies from 1996 to 2002.
Marianne Liebmann Net worth: $2.6 billion #209 on Forbes 400	Morse Land Co. Ltd., which received $4,282 in livestock, barley, oat, wheat and other farm subsidies from 2000 to 2005.
Whitney MacMillan Net worth: $3.8 billion #122 on Forbes 400	$25,226 in wheat and barley subsidies from 1996 to 1999. Wild Eagle Mountain Ranch LLC, which received $10,417 in wheat and barley subsidies from 2001 to 2003.
Neal Patterson Net worth: $1.5 billion #352 on Forbes 400	$51,911 in wheat and sorghum subsidies from 1995 to 2001. Southpoint Farms LLC, which received $66,770 in disaster payments, wheat, sorghum and other farm subsidies from 2002 to 2012.
Richard Peery Net worth: $2.1 billion #260 on Forbes 400	Peery & Arrillaga, which received $59,711 in wheat, sorghum, corn, barley, safflower and other farm subsidies from 1995 to 2006.
Anthony Pritzker Net worth: $3 billion #166 on Forbes 400	Chicago Mill & Lumber Co., which received $1,604,288 in cotton, soybean, corn, sorghum, wheat, rice, oat and other farm subsidies from 1996 to 2006.
Daniel Pritzker Net worth: $1.95 billion #293 on Forbes 400	Chicago Mill & Lumber Co., which received $1,604,288 in cotton, soybean, corn, sorghum, wheat, rice, oat and other farm subsidies from 1996 to 2006.
Jay Robert Pritzker Net worth: $3 billion #166 on Forbes 400	Chicago Mill & Lumber Co., which received $1,604,288 in cotton, soybean, corn, sorghum, wheat, rice, oat and other farm subsidies from 1996 to 2006.
Jean (Gigi) Pritzker Net worth: $2.1 billion #260 on Forbes 400	Chicago Mill & Lumber Co., which received $1,604,288 in cotton, soybean, corn, sorghum, wheat, rice, oat and other farm subsidies from 1996 to 2006.
Jennifer Pritzker Net worth: $1.7 billion #327 on Forbes 400	Chicago Mill & Lumber Co., which received $1,604,288 in cotton, soybean, corn, sorghum, wheat, rice, oat and other farm subsidies from 1996 to 2006.
John Pritzker Net worth: $2 billion #273 on Forbes 400	Chicago Mill & Lumber Co., which received $1,604,288 in cotton, soybean, corn, sorghum, wheat, rice, oat and other farm subsidies from 1996 to 2006.
Karen Pritzker Net worth: $3.3 billion #151 on Forbes 400	Chicago Mill & Lumber Co., which received $1,604,288 in cotton, soybean, corn, sorghum, wheat, rice, oat and other farm subsidies from 1996 to 2006.
Linda Pritzker Net worth: $1.8 billion #314 on Forbes 400	Chicago Mill & Lumber Co., which received $1,604,288 in cotton, soybean, corn, sorghum, wheat, rice, oat and other farm subsidies from 1996 to 2006.
Nicholas Pritzker, II. Net worth: $1.35 billion #382 on Forbes 400	Chicago Mill & Lumber Co., which received $1,604,288 in cotton, soybean, corn, sorghum, wheat, rice, oat and other farm subsidies from 1996 to 2006.
Penny Pritzker Net worth: $2.2 billion #252 on Forbes 400	Chicago Mill & Lumber Co., which received $1,604,288 in cotton, soybean, corn, sorghum, wheat, rice, oat and other farm subsidies from 1996 to 2006.
Thomas Pritzker Net worth: $2.7 billion #201 on Forbes 400	Chicago Mill & Lumber Co., which received $1,604,288 in cotton, soybean, corn, sorghum, wheat, rice, oat and other farm subsidies from 1996 to 2006.
Stewart & Lynda Resnick Net worth: $3.5 billion #134 on Forbes 400	Paramount Land Co. LP, which received $576,603 in wheat, cotton, corn, sorghum and other farm subsidies from 1995 to 2002.
David Rockefeller, Sr. Net worth: $2.8 billion #193 on Forbes 400	$563,715 in corn, soybean, wheat, oat, sorghum and other farm subsidies from 1996 to 2006.
Robert Rowling Net worth: $4.9 billion #93 on Forbes 400	Rowling Ranch Corp., which received $157,427 in corn, sorghum and livestock subsidies from 2000 to 2008.
Fayez Sarofim Net worth: $2 billion #273 on Forbes 400	Holly Sugar Corp., which received $51,246 in wheat, corn, barley, sugar beet, oat and other farm subsidies from 1995 to 2003. FS Ranch Corporation, which received $67,125 in livestock subsidies in 2002.
Charles Schwab Net worth: $5.1 billion #88 on Forbes 400	$525,593 in rice and other farm subsidies from 1995 to 2003.
Walter Scott, Jr. Net worth: $2.2 billion #252 on Forbes 400	$62,031 in livestock subsidies in 2002. Double Eight Land Corp., which received $41,101 in livestock subsidies in 2002.
Harold Simmons Net worth: $10 billion #40 on Forbes 400	Dixie Rice Agriculture Corp., which received $677,300 in rice, sorghum and other farm subsidies from 1995 to 2003. Southwest Louisiana Land Co Inc., which received $272,511 in disaster payments, rice, soybean and other farm subsidies from 1995 to 2003. Contran Realty Corp., which received $17,754 in rice and other farm subsidies from 1996 to 2003. Contran Corp., which received $2,960 in wheat subsidies from 1998 to 2000.
Warren Stephens Net worth: $2.5 billion #222 on Forbes 400	Stephens Group Incorporated, which received $146,260 in peanut, wheat, corn, oat, sorghum and other farm subsidies from 1996 to 2003. Greenbriar Lodge LLC, which received $86,642 in rice, soybean and wheat subsidies from 2002 to 2008.
Glen Taylor Net worth: $1.7 billion #327 on Forbes 400	Glen A. Taylor Revocable Trust, which received $832,970 in corn, soybean, wheat, oat and other farm subsidies from 1995 to 2007.
Alice Walton Net worth: $33.5 billion #8 on Forbes 400	Robson Ranch Inc., which received $261,292 in crop disaster payments, wheat, soybean, corn and other farm subsidies from 1995 to 2008.
Jim Walton Net worth: $33.8 billion #7 on Forbes 400	Robson Ranch Inc., which received $261,292 in crop disaster payments, wheat, soybean, corn and other farm subsidies from 1995 to 2008.
S. Robson Walton Net worth: $33.3 billion #9 on Forbes 400	Robson Ranch Inc., which received $261,292 in crop disaster payments, wheat, soybean, corn and other farm subsidies from 1995 to 2008.
Leslie Wexner Net worth: $5.7 billion #73 on Forbes 400	LAW Plantation Co. LLC, which received $209,717 in wheat, corn, sorghum and oat subsidies from 1997 to 2003. The New Albany Co., which received $13 in farm subsidies in 1996.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/07/us...inds.html?_r=0