That's not what I would call simple. America has a long history of subsidizing farmers, which in turn keeps food prices down.

Not all food subsidies keep food prices down. For example, several crops have dedicated programs where the government keeps a significant portion of the annual crop off the open market as a means of keeping the price high (see the recent SCOTUS case about raisins). Then there's things like ethanol mandates which act as a subsidy to farmers but increase both the cost of food and the cost of gasoline. An even bigger problem are import tariffs and other forms of protectionism that again subsidize farmers but increase prices.

Food stamps are a far far better way of subsidizing food for the poor than through a rube goldberg system of supposedly helping the poor by giving millions to huge agribusinesses. So much so that I consider those types of arguments a bit of a red herring. Along with the "food security" argument -- there's no impeding worldwide embargo of the united states and if there were calories would be the least of our problems.

> America has a long history of subsidizing farmers, which in turn keeps food prices down.

I would assume that instead of keeping food prices down, farming subsidies will drive farming land prices up.

As long as you're fine with us, in turn, paying market price for those foods they grow.

Farmers starve, up the price, now I'm paying $12 for an Orange. Nice solution.

Production of water inefficient crops would shift to states with water, Cali famers would shift to more efficient crops.

The US is a big country, there's no need to grow almonds in the desert.