Press "Enter" to skip to content

Bosworth Family: Dependent Animals on Farm Subsidies

Thanks to the crude, tasteless, yet instructive efforts of fake conservative Annette Bosworth, we all know that recipients of government assistance are weak, dependent animals.

At peril of further crudity and tasteless, I present this page from the Environmental Working Group's farm subsidy database:

Farm Subsidies for "Bosworth" in South Dakota, from Environmental Working Group, doanloaded 2014.05.04
Farm Subsidies for "Bosworth" in South Dakota, from Environmental Working Group, doanloaded 2014.05.04. Click to embiggen!

As I reported last summer, Annette Bosworth's father Richard is a regular recipient of government assistance. Annette's mother Rose also took a small dip from the federal honey pot. And somehow Annette herself, who revels in telling folks that the main reason she went to med school was that she's too good for farm chores, has taken $4,994.97 in farm subsidies (for what? carrying melons out of the barn?).

Bosworth has said publicly that she would end farm subsidies. But is it too late to save her and her family from the crushing grip of dependency? Even if we end farm subsidies, will Annette be able to break free from her constant appeals to the charity of others and make a living through honest work? Or have farm subsidies forever made her and her family poor, dumb animals?


  1. Shirley Harrington-Moore 2014.05.04

    The only problem I have with EWG's stats on government handouts is that when you receive payments for CRP, which is different from crop payments, EWG does not differentiate.

  2. Jerry 2014.05.04

    She is delusional and needs help for that. I think that a review by the medical board could help force her into the treatments she needs to be functional.

  3. Tim 2014.05.04

    Cory, she has the dumb part down pat, but please don't insult animals by putting them in with the likes of Bosworth.
    Farm subsidies are republican approved hand-outs, those don't count, only the ones that help the poor count.

  4. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.05.04

    Ms Harrington Moore, The only problem with your way of thinking is that CRP is still a subsidy. It is used when it is to the benefit of the landowner. When crop prices go through the roof, the farmers have a tendency to take their land out of CRP and now to even drain their wetlands, which makes CRP a self defeating program to begin with.

  5. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.05.04

    Actually, Shirley, when I click on a recipient's name in the EWG database, I get a breakdown in three columns: conservation, disaster, and commodity. Aren't the conservation numbers for CRP, while the commodity numbers would be the crop payments?

  6. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.05.04

    Richard Bosworth's payments break down $127,586 in conservation payments, $107,567 in disaster payments, and $245,785 in crop payments. At the bottom of his listing, EWG breaks down the commodity payments by crop.

  7. Daniel Willard 2014.05.04

    Farm subsidies and CRP land is nothing more than people stand there with their handout asking for other peoples money. I get so sick and tired of farmers using GMO products then begging for let's just what it is welfare.

  8. Tim 2014.05.04

    Yes Daniel, but it is republican approved welfare, you'll never hear them complain about that.

  9. mike from iowa 2014.05.04

    Farmers don't have much choice whether to use GMO products. You really have to look to find seeds that haven't been modified and organically grown crops can be infected by GMO genetics which,at one time,led some farmers being charged with copyright infringement,or something of that order.

  10. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.05.04

    " which,at one time,led some farmers being charged with copyright infringement,or something of that order."

    Still does in the US, Mike, but courts in some other ag countries, have seen through the smoke screen put up by Monsanto or have outright refused the bribes offered to rule in Monsanto's favor.

  11. Lynn G. 2014.05.04

    I feel GMO's are just plain bad with the studies that have come out and how they came into the marketplace with basically no standards for testing. I agree with what Lanny and Mike from Iowa but this would be off topic and a different thread

  12. mike from iowa 2014.05.04

    CRP started out as a program to take highly erodable cropground out of production. Farmers/landowners were paid to let it sit idle with a suitable cover crop to help prevent erosion. This land was not to be used for haying or grazing. Then when states started experiencing droughts,rules were relaxed to allow haying and or grazing. The land was to sit idle for a prescribed number of years,but like Lanny mentions it gets put back into production when prices escalate. As for wetlands,the farm I live on has some pasture designated under the "sodbuster" rule that will keep it from being plowed up forever. I've lived here for 36 years and some of the farm has always been pasture. When the farm was sold in 2010,after my ex-FIL passed,two small pastures along the lane were allowed to be farmed. I had never seen crops on those two fields,but they did not require any tile to make them farmable.

  13. Roger Cornelius 2014.05.04

    Hopefully someone that still has access to her Facebook page can post this information in the comments section. You'll be blocked after that, but what the hell.

    I'll do my part, since she blocked me from Facebook, by sharing Cory's blog in any many I can.

  14. John 2014.05.04

    ah, a true faux republican - suckin' at the federal teet on one side of her mouth and bad mouthing the federal government out the other side - a true hypocrite. She, like Noem, is a hypocritical federal welfare queen ready to voting against her and South Dakota's interest.

  15. Tiffany 2014.05.04

    I shared it in the comments under her last "Daily Devotional" with the caption, "Would you like to elaborate on your stance on subsidies? I'm a bit confused." :-D

  16. Roger Cornelius 2014.05.04


    I checked out the comment sections on her food stamp tirades and couldn't find your comment.

    Apparently this courageous political leader didn't like the comment and deleted it.

  17. Tiffany 2014.05.04

    It's still there. Daily Devotion 31 I think it's under. Her last "pinned" post on her fan page.

  18. Dan 2014.05.04

    "Rose", on the bottom is her mom.

  19. CK 2014.05.05

    I shared this on her page under the "Daily Devotional" this morning. The comment has been removed and I am no longer allowed to post. So much for free speech. lol

  20. CK 2014.05.05

    Question: Why are her daily devotionals always in public places?

  21. Roger Cornelius 2014.05.05


    I'm thinking that the Bosworth campaign has one person designated to delete comments and unfriend posters.

    Rev. Steve Hickey does that to.

  22. Tiffany 2014.05.05

    Mine were deleted and I was banned too. :-P She's completely open to comments. Unless you don't agree with her.

  23. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.05.05

    CK, I've wondered about those locations. They seem ill-planned, ill-framed, just spur of the moment... like much of the campaign so far.

  24. grudznick 2014.05.05

    Sometimes people choose to utilize public spaces to relax, keep warm, keep cool, sleep, things like that. Ever been to the Rapid City library? I even know people who shit shave and shower (in the sink) in the local Hardees there by Talley's Silver Spoon. I've seen people heating their Ramen noodle dinners in that very Hardees restroom and stealing a plastic spork.

    My thought is that Dr. Bos has gone insaner than most but has tastes that lend her to hang out in the waiting areas of office buildings and restaurants. I know I'd hang out in the Alex lounge a lot and then lurk about the bars and food areas if I was in that position.

Comments are closed.