Readers write (June 3): Farm subsidies, budget politics, foreign aid, athletes and doping

In a June 2 commentary about farm subsidies ("Farming: Equity and evolution"), the author asserted that "today's agriculture is the very picture of success."

He went on to laud government subsidies to farmers, crediting them with the meteoric increase in production and the alleged success of modern agriculture.

The problem with this claim is twofold. First, our system of industrialized agriculture is hardly a success. The increase in production has come at the cost of a greater reliance on pesticides. As farming becomes more mechanized and chemically intensive, there are untold consequences for human and ecological health.

Second, subsidies are not the means to success. They have made our agricultural system dependent on a small number of grain crops, resulting in ecologically unsound monocultures. While subsidies do provide a safety net for farmers, they amount to artificial price supports that distort the true cost of agricultural outputs.

In the debate over the new farm bill, it is important to remember what truly constitutes success in agriculture. Provisions to encourage sustainable, small-scale agriculture could go a long way toward creating a healthy alternative to the high-yield, industrialized food system.

ELLEN SQUIRES, ANDOVER

• • •

How refreshing it is to hear a farmer suggest that farm subsidies be phased out. Nearly all we've heard from Republicans, Democrats and Tea Party voices is "cut the other guy's government spending, but mine is needed and sacrosanct."

The conservatives want to keep defense spending, border enforcement, the ill-conceived Bush tax cuts and such, while the liberals want to raise wealthy folks' taxes but keep middle-class cuts and their National Public Radio and Planned Parenthood spending.

Both sides' spending agendas are ideologically driven and have little to do with national security, fiscal responsibility or prudence.

Perhaps we all need to take a hard look at reducing our very own government largesse.

JIM WALDO, DULUTH

* * *

Projected Minnesota state budget deficit: $5 billion. Cost of a Mark Dayton mediator: At least $500 per person per hour. The governor's dearth of leadership: priceless.

MICHAEL DMOWSKI, EDINA

• • •

A May 30 letter writer stated, "Conservatives are tired of liberal politicians trying to spend other people's money."

Well, liberals are tired of conservative politicians being indifferent to human suffering.

PATRICK MCCAULEY, EDINA

* * *

Americans are passive about the growing wealth divide in the United States because celebrities like Justin Bieber and Oprah Winfrey make the American Dream seem as though it is accessible to anyone, according to an article published on StarTribune.com's Opinion section ("The Bieber effect"). This understanding not only harms Americans living in poverty, but also harms developing countries.

Adopting a mentality that assumes that underdeveloped countries should be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps ignores many of the reasons why these countries are on the ground in the first place. Many of them have been kicked and beaten down by colonization, foreign policies, large debts and unjust trade agreements.

The budget is tight for the United States, but that does not mean that it should cut the minuscule part of the budget that is directed toward development efforts abroad. This money is not simply charity; it is also justice when it addresses the root causes of poverty and creates projects that will become sustainable solutions.

Americans are indeed far too passive about the wealth divide. Underdeveloped countries will remain beaten down until the United States offers them a firmer hand to help them up.

ANA HECK, PLYMOUTH

* * *

A few thoughts for the June 2 letter writer who thinks that Lance Armstrong is unfairly accused of using performance-enhancing drugs:

1) Regarding the fact he is the most-tested cyclist in the history of sport without a positive result: According to former teammate Tyler Hamilton on "60 Minutes," Armstrong did test positive, but a deal with a cycling authority made it go away.

2) The use of performance-enhance drugs can be disguised.

3) Regarding the fact the 39-year-old Armstrong came in third in 2009 in the Tour de France after having been away from the sport for four years, while not training as much and being tested constantly: Maybe in 2009 he didn't use performance-enhancing drugs. If he had, maybe he would have won again.

4) At least three of his former teammates have acknowledged using performance-enhance drugs, and one of them, Floyd Landis, also won the Tour.

5) I am a cyclist, 70 years old, and I don't have a beer gut.

PATRICK DALEY, PLYMOUTH