Despite the best, and tiresomely repetitive, efforts of the left to muddle the two terms for their own political gain, a "subsidy," or money taken from other productive taxpayers and put into your own pocket, is not the same thing as a tax cut, which simply allows you to keep more of the money you have earned.

"Welfare," corporate or otherwise, is also broken down the same way. Tax cuts are not welfare.

I think I have broken some kind of record for explaining this over and over again, often to the same people.

That being said, the wealthy pay almost all of the taxes in this country. The fact that most of the taxes are paid by a relatively small number of voters may say a lot for why we are where we are. The guys who pay ten million a year in taxes get one vote, just like the guys who pay little or nothing.

I am endlessly amused by liberals trying to simultaneously assert that the wealthy pay little or no taxes due to all the "loopholes," and yet if we manage to cut the taxes they do pay, suddenly huge amounts of money will cease to flow into the Treasury and the budget will be wrecked. Even a six-year-old could see you can't hold both positions at once.

Farmers have tried to justify their subsidies by pointing out that since they are taxpaying citizens, it ain't "welfare." This is a little feeble. Others point out that they are so restricted by farm regulations, rigid price controls, and import/export rules, that they are basically a government operation anyway, and the subsidies are just part of the bigger mixed-economy picture. Not a good excuse either, but at least you can see their point.

And you are right that farm corporations walk off with most of the goodies.