Storm of Critical Farm Bill Editorials Continues

Published January 9, 2008

Trim Farm Subsidies
McConnell should support bill's ag reforms
The Lexington Herald Leader

Given a chance to support family farming and fiscal fitness, Sens. Mitch McConnell and Jim Bunning voted no.

Their opposition to a bipartisan amendment that would have reduced farm-bill bloat is a disappointment to rural Kentuckians, U.S. taxpayers and the world's poor farmers who are being ruined by the subsidies our government lavishes on American cotton and grain.

Before adjourning for the holidays, a majority of the Senate approved an amendment that would have capped support payments at $250,000 per farm. But the Democratic leaders imposed a 60-vote requirement and the measure fell short by four votes.

There's still a chance to redeem this year's farm bill, though, as Senate and House negotiators work out differences and come up with a final version. There's also a powerful impetus to do that: President Bush has vowed a veto unless Congress trims the trade-distorting subsidies.

McConnell, the minority leader, should use his influence to push the kind of reforms that in the past he has said would be better for Kentucky's small-scale agriculture.

With corn growers flush from the demand for ethanol, there's no better time to apply the brakes to runaway subsidies that enrich wealthy corporate interests at the expense of small farmers everywhere.

McConnell was proud of getting $18 million into the farm bill for educating school children on the importance of a nutritious diet and physical activity. "Over the past three decades, the childhood obesity rate has more than tripled, affecting over 4.5 million children," he said without mentioning that the agriculture subsidy system is a prime culprit in the fattening of America.

Put together a healthful table of fresh vegetables and fruits, with meat raised on local pastures, and none of it will have received any support from the federal government.

But put together a spread of fattening, artery-clogging food, the kind that's shortening the life span of today's kids, and it will be heavily subsidized with your tax dollars.

On the more nutritious side, both Senate and House versions of the farm bill will help 10 million people, including almost 590,000 Kentuckians, afford an adequate diet by ending years of erosion in the purchasing power of food stamps.

--

Still Time to Fix Farm Bill
The Register-Guard (OR)

Congress has one last chance to make meaningful changes in this nation’s outdated, irrational and unfair system of federal farm subsidies — a system that perpetuates taxpayer-funded giveaways for wealthy agri-businesses and ignores most Oregon farmers.

Late last year the U.S. Senate passed a $286 billion farm bill that, with few exceptions, perpetuates a bloated program that funnels more than half of all farm payments to less than 10 percent of the farms. Most of those farms are in eight states, and most produce major row crops such as wheat, corn, rice, cotton and soybeans, reaping billions in subsidies despite thriving markets for many of their commodities.

Corporate welfare is probably too generous a description for the Senate bill, which doles out subsidies to agri-magnates who earn as much as $2.5 million a year. As a sop to President Bush’s sensible call for reform, the Senate bill lowers that cap to $750,000 in 2010, nearly four times the $200,000 ceiling sought by the White House. The Senate bill also tosses in more than $5 billion for “permanent disaster relief,” which means the corporate trough will be filled with subsidies no matter what happens.

The House version of the farm bill isn’t much better. It includes a few minor upgrades, including a modest amount of money for some fruit and vegetable growers not traditionally covered under commodity programs. It would prohibit subsidies to farmers whose incomes average more than $1 million a year.

Neither the House nor the Senate bills made the fundamental changes long overdue for a Depression-era safety net that now drives small family farmers out of business and encourages farm consolidation and overproduction of subsidized crops. That drives up land prices and makes it prohibitively expensive for new farmers to get started. That violates international trade agreements and hurts farmers in developing nations. That damages the environment by providing irresistible incentives to plant marginal farmlands.

It didn’t have to be this way. Lawmakers had a sensible alternative that would have fixed many of these inequities. A bill written by Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., would have dismantled the existing system of subsidies for a few crops and replaced it with a government-funded crop insurance program that would cover all farms, whether they produce mint in the Willamette Valley or soybeans in Iowa.

The Lugar-Lautenburg bill would have saved U.S. taxpayers more than $3 billion a year, while providing more money for environmental, nutritional, conservation, rural development and other worthwhile programs that get the short shrift in the current subsidy program.

The House and Senate bills now go to a conference committee, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should make certain that stricter limits are put on subsidies for wealthy farmers. They should also ensure that the final version of the farm bill does more to help the farmers who really are in need, to feed the hungry, to honor this nation’s trade obligations, to protect the environment and to reward innovation.

If Reid and Pelosi fail to make major improvements to this retrograde farm bill, Bush should make good on his threat to veto the current legislation. And congressional Democrats should never again wonder why the public holds Congress in such low esteem.

--

Farm Bill Programs Need Income Cap
Sioux City Journal

The two versions of the new, five-year farm bill are plagued by the same defect: neither contains a meaningful income cap for those who receive benefits from its programs.

On Saturday, acting U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner told the South Dakota Growers Association that without such a cap, and other changes, President Bush was sure to veto the bill. Conner and others in the department will recommend a veto if the bill isn’t fixed, he said.

The House farm bill passed 231-191, and the Senate bill passed 79-14. The next step is a conference committee.

We’ve heard a lot about change from some of the leading contenders on both sides of the aisle this primary election season, and voters have responded. The farm bill is yet another example of why we need meaningful change in Washington, D.C. The massive, $286 billion legislation is -- as always -- bloated with pork. Worse yet, it provides subsidies to those who do not need them.

U.S. Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., helped push the Senate version of the farm bill through the process and believes it is a strong bill for rural Americans. Johnson’s response to Conner’s critique represents yet another version of a status quo that needs to be changed. He might as well have said, "Well, this is the way it's always been."

It simply makes sense to cap benefits. No one making $200,000 or more averaged over three years should be getting government payments. Yet the Democrats, ironically, who are pushing the bill don’t seem to see a problem with those subsidies.

But it wouldn’t be simply rich, rural farmers who would no longer able to suckle at government’s teat. During his speech Saturday, Conner pointed out many beneficiaries live in New York City.

Johnson did get it right, however, when he said, “Good things take time.” Let’s take the time to get this right. Yes, it may mean a delay that stretches beyond the November 2008 election. But if we’ve learned anything from voters over the last several days it is that they truly do want real reform.

This legislation doesn’t fit that bill.

--

Farm Bill Growing Old
Maybe it's time to start over on outmoded federal legislation
Stockton Record

The 2007 Farm Bill includes no major overhaul of subsidies to a few Midwest grain commodities and might be vetoed by President Bush.

Specialty crop growers in San Joaquin County and Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Atwater, however, are pleased, because it contains research funding for fruit, nut and vegetable growers.

A new Farm Bill has been enacted every five years since 1933, when it was devised as part of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.

During the Great Depression, it was developed to reduce crop surpluses and increase crop values.

The 2007 legislation would achieve reform by addition, not subtraction. The House and Senate versions are expected to go to a conference committee this month before being sent to Bush.

"There's just a hundred things left to watch," Cardoza said. "There's still a whole lot of moving parts."

Lobbyists and lawmakers still are trying to sneak items into the $288 billion, 1,300-page bill.

Its final form also could be altered. A strong bipartisan effort in the Senate to divert $6 billion from traditional subsidies for corn, soybeans, rice, cotton and wheat and into nutrition, conservation and environmental programs failed but could resurface as the bills are reconciled.

Bush has said he might veto the legislation if it doesn't reduce subsidies but preserves a cotton subsidy World Trade Organization officials have said is illegal.

The long struggle to pass a new Farm Bill reiterates how this outdated, narrowly focused legislation must be overhauled to better reflect modern trends.

While more beneficial than usual to California farmers, it still reinforces the status quo.

Nobody can agree on how to reshape agricultural policy using traditional approaches. Maybe they should just dismantle the old system and start again.

--

Farm Subsidies Corrupt
Federal system benefits only a favored few
Patriot News (PA)

As we do every year at this time, we welcome Pennsylvania's farmers and their families to the annual Farm Show, one of this state's unique and most popular institutions. It affords an opportunity for city and suburban folk to see the fruits of the commonwealth's 58,000 farms, including livestock of every description, along with a chance to sample the taste treats provided by some of the state's most popular foods.

But while the festivities are under way, there is serious business to be attended to in Washington that directly affects farmers and the rest of us. That is the reconciliation of two massive farm bills, one passed by the House and the other by the Senate, each consisting of more than 1,000 pages, that will set the nation's agricultural policy for the next five years.

This was an opportunity to bring some much-needed reform to government's massive subsidization of a few select agricultural commodities at a time of record prices. An attempt last month to amend the Senate's $286 billion farm bill to limit payments to $250,000 per farm couple failed, a move which, had it succeeded, would have provided more funds for farm conservation practices that are essential to preventing erosion, protecting water quality and habitat. Locally, such monies are needed in the Susquehanna River and other watersheds that feed Chesapeake Bay, if that estuary is ever to recover to anything approaching the "food factory" it once was.

It cannot be said enough that at a time of ongoing deficit spending, with major unmet needs in a whole host of areas, the nation cannot afford to be providing welfare to farmers who don't need it and whose greed jeopardizes public support for the bulk of the farming community, who receive little or no government dollars. It is an outrage that taxpayers continue to send hefty subsidy checks to millionaire farmers and part-time farmers, some of whom don't even live on a farm and never get their hands dirty. This corrupt system needs to end if Congress is ever to regain credibility with the working people of America who are the backbone of our society.

President Bush has rightly threatened to veto the farm bill in its current state in both the House and Senate, and we urge him to do exactly that if the members of Congress cannot do right by the nation's taxpayers, and the great majority of hard-working and honest farmers of this country.

--

Final Chance to end Subsidies for Millionaires;
Conference committee gives Pelosi, Reid a last opportunity to cut pork in farm bill
Sacramento Bee
Merced Sun Star

The next time House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid talk about ending poverty, stopping giveaways for wealthy corporations and finding bipartisan solutions, remember their work on the 2007 farm bill.

Before adjourning for the holidays, the Senate endorsed a $286 billion farm bill that is only slightly less wasteful and indefensible than the porkfest the House passed earlier in the year.

Despite a few nods at "reform," the Senate bill continues and expands subsidies for millionaire corporate farmers. It undercuts growers in Africa and developing countries who are desperate to compete on a level playing field. It spurs the overproduction of corn-syrup products that contribute to obesity. And it represents a slap in the face to the Bush administration, which rightly urged Congress to scale back the subsidies and pass a fiscally responsible bill.

For a moment in mid-December, there appeared to be a glimmer of hope. A bipartisan majority of senators rallied behind an amendment by Sen. Bryon Dorgan, D-N.D., and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, that would have capped farm support payments to $250,000 per farm each year. That would have freed up funds for food stamps, farm conservation programs and other, more worthy investments.

To their credit, California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer endorsed the amendment as well as other proposed reforms. But they were rebuffed by a coalition of Southern senators, led by Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., whose family has received farm subsidies in the past. Lincoln and other allies of Southern cotton and rice persuaded Reid to attach a 60-vote rule for passage of the Dorgan-Grassley amendment. Reformers were able to get just 56 votes, and so the Senate ultimately went on to endorse a bill that was effectively written by the beneficiaries of continued subsidies.

The action now moves to a House-Senate conference committee, which will give Pelosi and Reid some latitude to not only reconcile the two bills, but to shape them into something the president might sign.

Bush and his aides have threatened to veto the current work products. The White House contends the Senate bill includes up to $15 billion in tax increases to pay for bloated subsidies, and includes other provisions detrimental to U.S. trade policies.

Although the Senate's 79-14 vote suggests that Bush may risk an override by waving his veto pen, Democratic leaders -- particularly Pelosi -- should think long and hard before playing this gambit.

As a Field Poll revealed last month, only 1 out of 5 Californians surveyed has a favorable opinion of Congress. Voters are frustrated that lawmakers and the White House can't find common ground on popular causes.

Reforming the farm bill should be one area where Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree. The reform coalition includes fiscal hawks, environmentalists, small farmers, supporters of fair trade and more than 300 editorial boards across the country.

All want a bill that rewards innovation, resource protection and a more healthful U.S. diet, while limiting the waste and abuse of past farm bills.

Pelosi and Reid could still move the farm bill in this direction. But to do so, they will have to show more courage than they did in 2007.

--

Committee Needs Cardoza

Our local congressman should be on the 2007 House farm bill committee to protect Valley agricultural interests.

Merced CA Sun-Star

In late Jaunary, a few senators and members of the House of Representatives will go behind closed doors to decide what stays in and what gets left out of the 2007 farm bill. Dennis Cardoza must be in that room.

Congress passed two versions of the 2007 farm bill. In July, the House voted for a $286 billion, five-year program that included many of Cardoza's priorities -- money for farmers to fight pollution, aid conservation, conduct plant research and to protect consumers from dangerous foods.

In December, the Senate also approved a $286 billion bill with many of the same provisions.

So what's there to argue about? The devil is always in the details. Those details will be reconciled in a conference committee, made up of a few selected representatives and senators.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi will choose the House conferees. If she fails to appoint Cardoza, there's a chance California's concerns will be overlooked -- or sacrificed -- by legislators intent on keeping intact fat subsidy payments to corporate farmers.

Most subsidies go to corporations growing corn, wheat, cotton, rice and soybeans. Most California farmers specialize in higher-value fruits, vegetables, nuts and dairy products. Historically, they've eschewed federal subsidies and the rules that come with them.

But farming in California is changing. Farmers are required to meet stringent air and water safety regulations; exotic diseases are attacking their crops and animals; trade barriers block access to world markets. Such challenges require federal help -- and the House bill has it. For example:

The House provides specific dollars for Conservation Innovation Grants; the Senate offers only encouragement.

The House would spend $48 million on challenging barriers to American products overseas; the Senate allocates $38 million, but would cut that to $2 million in the final year -- making it harder to get funding in the next farm bill.

The House has greater support for the Market Access Program, which has created jobs in Stanislaus and Merced counties through increased ag exports.

The House would spend $215 million on specialty crop research; the Senate offers only $16 million.

Meanwhile, the House should embrace the Senate's "stewardship" program for specialty-crop growers and creation of a non-profit Healthy Food Enterprise Development Center to help poor people buy healthier foods. All of the dozens of such differences buried in the 1,360-page bill must be negotiated.

Protecting narrow Valley interests isn't the only reason to appoint Cardoza. The farm bill is a 72-year-old juggernaut filled with subsidies protected by rich special interests. Many people from across the nation are demanding these subsidies be ended. But juggernauts turn incrementally. Cardoza is among those capable of redirecting Farm Bill money from the wealthy few into programs that benefit more Americans. He can't negotiate if he's not invited to the table.

And that's up to Speaker Pelosi. Put Cardoza on the committee.

--

A Farm-Bill Failure
The Providence Journal

There is still time to alter the disappointing farm bill passed by the Senate just before it closed up shop for the holidays. Like the House, the Senate largely left intact billions in subsidies for farmers. It also slightly expanded funding for rural conservation and alternative-fuel development. Food Stamp allotments would increase. And some money, in school nutrition dollars and expenditures promoting research and marketing, would go to fruit and vegetable growers.

The problem is that, while all these new additions to the farm bill are generally good, the Senate did too little to excise the bad. Farm bills are approved every five years or so. With each new one, the system of bloated subsidies seems only to become more entrenched. Currently, fat payments are flowing even as farmers enjoy record prices for their crops. The bigger and more successful their operations, the greater share of taxpayer largess they tend to snag.

The $286 billion Senate bill, passed 79 to 14, not only preserves this system but adds nearly $10 billion in payments, including $5 billion for weather-related "disasters." Procedural maneuvers led by senators from the South foiled several reasonable efforts to scale back the payments. (Rice and cotton, the region's major crops, are costlier to grow than some other staples.)

The Senate bill is similar to a measure passed last summer by the House. But the two bodies must still come up with a compromise version when they return to work in January. At that point, public-interest groups and citizens should exert all the pressure they can muster to secure change. A good place to start is with areas in which the two bills differ. (They vary, for instance, on how high a farmer's income can be, and how much of it should be farm-based, before payments are cut off. The ceiling currently stands at an absurd $2.5 million.)

American farmers do need some support to withstand poor markets and disastrous weather, to protect our food supplies. But the direct-payment system is far too lavish, and poorly designed as well. It favors a relatively unhealthy corn- and soy-base diet, encourages poor farming practices, and makes it difficult for farmers in developing countries to compete. Congress should try again. And if it cannot at least begin the task of reform, President Bush should get out his veto pen.

--

Back Room Politics Prevail
Ames IA Tribune

Barack Obama blames lobbyists. Hunger and environmental groups blame Democratic leaders. Sen. Chuck Grassley calls it "smearing lipstick on a pig." The federal farm bill passed by the Senate was a turkey delivered for the holidays. It won't get much better when it is recooked in conference committee when Congress reconvenes.

This bill in both its Senate and House versions will continue to pump millions of subsidies into the pockets of wealthy landowners already earning record prices for crops. The abuse is epitomized by anecdotes such as a California property owner in the 90210 zip code who receives $1 million in subsidies for crops on land he doesn't set foot on. The statistics back up the stories. Seventy-three percent of payments are pocketed by 10 percent of the recipients, Grassley says.

The bills that will be worked out continue price supports for major commodity crops, corn, soybeans, cotton, wheat and rice. Backers argue that new measures promote biofuels and help fruit and vegetable growers. But the basic structure of the farm bill is unchanged.

You might think that this would be a classic "Eat The Rich" argument between Republicans and Democrats. But in fact, the Democratic leadership in Congress failed to change the structure that pumps millions into the wealthiest of those who call themselves farmers. It further erodes the dwindling culture of the family farmer.

Bipartisan groups of representatives and senators did attempt to limit payments to the top tier in various ways, including Grassley and Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota). The Washington Post counted four major efforts to change the bill's subsidy system and to shift dollars into conservation and nutrition programs.

But in the end, back room politics prevailed. Senators from the Midwest and South banded to defeat the amendments. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., who supports subsidies, threatened a filibuster if the Senate did not require a 60-vote minimum on the amendments. To save face on a potential filibuster in their own ranks, Democratic leadership gave in and the Grassley-Dorgan cap was defeated even though it received a majority of support.

And that's why Obama can blame influential lobbyists, and why advocacy groups can blame leadership.

Calling it a farm bill at all is a misnomer. Two thirds of the bill has to do with food stamps and nutrition programs. Crop subsidies, which are the major bone of contention, are a lesser part.

We were encouraged early in the campaign when Hillary Clinton, responding to a forum, indicated she might be willing to consider renaming it something like the rural America bill to more accurately reflect its mission, and thereby change direction. But that idea seems to have died in the campaigning.

Here is where Iowa might have truly led the nation. By pushing harder to revise a federal program that everyone agrees is an abuse, real change might have been effected.

As party members go to caucus next week, some ought to think about how their choices could make a difference.

--

Senate's Farm Bill is a Poor Legislative Yield, and House's Was Worse
Cleavland Plain Dealer

Although he ended up on the losing end most of the time, Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown tried hard to improve the bill.

In its rush to do something before depart ing for the holidays, the U.S. Senate over whelmingly passed a $286 billion farm bill that includes some good provisions, but ultimately reinforces a flawed status quo. It now must be reconciled with a House version that's even more disappointing, meaning that there's little reason to believe the upcoming conference committee will produce any sort of meaningful reform during the five years this measure will define America's farm, food and nutrition policies.

What's wrong with the Senate bill? For starters, it sustains the crop subsidies that made sense during the New Deal but are impossible to justify with farm income at record levels. It also keeps those subsidies flowing to the wealthiest farmers and fails to impose a reasonable cap on this taxpayer-supported aid. It creates a new relief program for farmers and ranchers who choose to operate in areas where weather disasters are frequent and predictable. At the same time, it protects subsidies to private crop insurance companies.

The bill might have addressed some of these issues, but for the timidity of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Rather than risk the embarrassment of a filibuster led by a fellow Democrat, Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln, Reid agreed to require a supermajority of 60 votes to pass any amendments. That doomed efforts to bar subsidies to farmers making more than $750,000 a year and to cap subsidies at $250,000 a year.

Although he ended up on the losing end most of the time, Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown tried hard to improve the bill. The first Ohioan on the Senate Agriculture Committee in four decades, he not only voted to bring subsidies in line, he backed an effort to scrap them altogether and to curtail the crop insurers' gravy train. Most important, along with Dick Durbin of Illinois, Brown spearheaded an effort to replace crop supports with a more enlightened revenue protection plan. The committee wouldn't go that far, but it did include the proposal as an option for farmers in the final bill; farm groups predict that many corn and soybean growers would pick this safety net instead of subsidies. That stayed in the final bill, which Brown joined 77 colleagues - though not Ohio Republican George Voinovich - in backing.

That final bill would improve food stamps, get healthier food to schools and nutrition centers and encourage conservation and alternative energy. But overall, it represents a blown chance for real, worthwhile change. Too many members of Congress keep deferring to colleagues beholden to narrow interests. Maybe it will take a presidential veto for them to break old habits and try something new.

--

One Last Chance for Farm Subsidy Reform;
House, Senate conferees should cut farm subsidies.
Minneapolis Star Tribune

We didn't really need to be reminded, but the U.S. Senate has shown once again that money often stands in the way of sensible progress in Washington.

After a six-week impasse, the Senate passed a $286 billion farm bill that makes only minor changes to the bloated agricultural subsidy system that rewards rich farmers for being farmers. The Senate rejected an amendment proposed by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., that would have stopped subsidy payments to full-time farmers with adjusted incomes of $750,000, rather than the current cutoff of $2.5 million. The amendment, which needed 60 votes for passage, was backed by a 49-48 majority. A separate amendment that would have capped the payments themselves at $250,000, down from $360,000 now, also died in the Senate.

That made it an early Christmas for lots of wealthy farmers and their elected representatives, including Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark. Lincoln threatened to hold up the entire bill unless Democratic leaders agreed to the 60-vote requirement. Arkansas is just one of the big agricultural states whose farmers will get a nice cut of the estimated $20 billion in federal subsidies this year. Even with high crop prices and increasing land values, two-thirds of the windfall will go to the wealthiest 10 percent of the country's farms.

Although major changes in the subsidies system appear unlikely, there's another chance for Congress to take a crack at the income and payment limits. In January the Senate bill will have to be reconciled with the House version, and President Bush has proposed significant subsidy caps.

A key player in that work will be Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. Peterson said he would like to see some progress on subsidies, and he credited Klobuchar for creating some momentum with her amendment. But Peterson's optimism was guarded at best. "The administration still continues to push their ideas, but there's no support in the Congress for it,'' he said.

It looks like the final version of the bill will improve the food stamp program and boost childhood nutrition by providing free fruit and vegetables to at least 100 public schools and Indian reservations. There's also funding for biofuels research and programs that would reduce rural soil and water pollution, as well as additional funding for conservation programs. That's real progress - the kind of progress we wish we were seeing on subsidies.

"It would be good if someday we get to the point where we don't need farm payments,'' Peterson said. That day may be years off, but next month House and Senate conferees will have another chance to at least put stricter limits on subsidies for farmers who don't need a taxpayer bailout to make a living.

Until then, if you're a wealthy farmer in America, it's a wonderful life.

THUMBS DOWN

"Farmers understand that a program that takes tax dollars from middle-income America and transfers those tax dollars to the nation's wealthiest few is, simply put, bad policy. This bill completely fails to correct that problem.''

Acting Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner

--

Another Fat Farm Bill
The Cincinnati Post
The Kentucky Post

Senators left Washington to adjourn for the year bearing a gift for every U.S. consumer. Unfortunately, it was a lump of coal: the Farm Bill.

Congress had an opportunity to wean large commercial farming operations from taxpayer subsidies, and treat agricultural entities as businesses, rather than recipients of corporate welfare. It didn't.

The House and Senate versions of the Farm Bill must still be reconciled in a conference committee. Yet neither version signals a major departure from the dysfunctional status quo.

To be sure, roughly two-thirds of the Farm Bill's spending covers food stamps and other nutrition programs. But the Senate had several opportunities to truly limit subsidy programs and it balked.

It could have phased out direct payments to farm operations altogether, as an amendment by Sen. Richard Lugar, the Indiana Republican, would have done.

Lugar points out that over the past decade, 70 percent of all farm subsidies -- totaling $120 billion -- have gone to 6 percent of farms. Lugar's amendment would have ended those payments (which flow to farmers even if they're earning profits on their operations) by 2014. It would have also set up a true crop insurance program: Farmers would receive payments only when yields or revenues fell by 15 percent in an entire county.

A system like this would minimize taxpayer costs and, over time, sunset the Depression-era subsidy programs. It got only 37 votes.

Even more modest reforms didn't fare much better. Senators could have set caps on payments; once individual farms reached those limits, they could no longer collect financial support from taxpayers. An amendment proposed by Sen. Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, would have capped yearly payments at $250,000 per married couple. It passed, 56-43. The four Democratic senators running for president returned to Washington to vote for it. Even Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat who's rarely met a farm subsidy he couldn't embrace, supported the amendment.

But Democratic leaders insisted that any amendment receive 60 votes, so even a majority of senators were unable to dislodge wealthy subsidy recipients from the taxpayer trough.

What the Senate passed makes a mockery of reform, and by some measures is worse than its House counterpart. The Senate version would by 2010 cut off agricultural payments to absentee owners and others who get more than a third of their income from non-farm sources if their adjusted gross income exceeds $750,000.

But if you're a full-time farmer, the Senate doesn't care how much you earn -- you can collect subsidies even if you rake in millions annually. At least the House version would immediately end payments for "real" farmers who earn $1 million or more a year. The Senate bill is a sham. And since the House bill isn't much better, President Bush should veto whatever eventually reaches his desk.

The support Dorgan's amendment received, however, shows there is a constituency for reform in Washington that the subsidy-addicted farm lobby should no longer be allowed to silence.

Greater Cincinnati's delegation has been divided on this legislation. The voting record shows that Reps. John Boehner, Steve Chabot, Jean Schmidt and Geoff Davis, Republicans all, opposed the House version of the farm bill when the lower chamber voted on it in July. In the Senate earlier this month, Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown voted for it, as did Kentucky Sens. Mitch McConnell and Jim Bunning, while Ohio Republican George Voinovich voted against it.

President Bush should use his veto power and the evident skepticism in Congress about the bloated packages now on the table to force the conference committee to craft a final bill that dramatically curtails subsidies -- or better yet, phases them out all together.

--

A Crop of Subsidies
Louisville Courier Journal

Perhaps in the aftermath of Christmas, the feeling of too much reckless spending will overcome congressional leaders and will cause them to rethink this year's farm bill when they get back to Washington.

After all, the chance still exists to pass the kind of bill they know they ought to pass. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last month, "There has to be change. There is a complete recognition that there does."

And yet, for political reasons, Speaker Pelosi didn't exactly lead a crusade against the bloated, old-fashioned version of the farm bill that her chamber passed last summer, full of the same old kinds of market-distorting entitlements that hurt this country's small farmers, as well as farmers in developing countries.

The Democratic-controlled Senate did only slightly better this month when it passed its version, making piddling changes such as limiting subsidies to households making less than $750,000 a year, compared to the House's limits -- subsidies only for farmers making less than $1 million.

What is really needed, of course, is a new approach that still provides a safety net for farmers but reflects the realities of our time and the current economy, instead of the Depression era, when the first farm subsidies were created. Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar has spent years trying to change the farm program. Once again, he offered a highly touted proposal this year. The short-lived Freedom to Farm Act of 1996 reflected his work, too.

But the realities of Washington make substantive change difficult, because legislation on agricultural issues comes out of the agriculture committee, which is dominated by lawmakers from rural states that benefit from the current subsidy system.

Plus, the farm bill is always loaded up with goodies for states with big urban areas, too, like improvements in the food stamp program

Of course, the only version of the farm bill that really counts is the one that a Senate and House conference committee will write when they try to reconcile their differences. So the possibility still exists that something good could happen.

The groups advocating against this unfair, old-fashioned, outrageously expensive approach that is now in existence form a broad spectrum. When was the last time President Bush and the Environmental Defense Fund were on the same side of a big fight?

Everyone knows change needs to happen. It's a matter of Congress mustering the courage to do what it should do.

--

Don’t Give Up on Farm Subsidy Reform
Lincoln NE Journal Star

Congress has one more chance to make common-sense reductions in crop subsidies before they are cemented into law for the next six years.

That’s when House and Senate conferees meet to reconcile the differing versions of the farm bill passed by both houses.

Advocates of payment caps are feeling bruised, weary and bitterly disappointed. Many had their hopes pinned to an amendment to the senate version of the bill by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., that would have capped payments to farmers at $250,000.
The amendment won on a 56-43, but failed to reach the supermajority of 60 votes necessary. Nebraskans can find some solace in the knowledge that both Sen. Ben Nelson and Sen. Chuck Hagel supported the measure.

Supporters of the cuts should muster strength for one last-ditch effort before it’s too late.

In a nutshell this profound mistake was made because beneficiaries know how what levers to pull in the complex task of putting together the $286 billion bill that includes everything from crop subsidies to food stamps to school lunch programs.

Although opposition to reform is strong among delegations from Southern states that receive cotton subsidies, they alone were not strong enough to defeat the amendment.

“The responsibility for killing reform lies with a small handful of Northern Plains and Midwestern senators who sided with selfish interests over the good of the overwhelming majority of farmers and rural people,” said Chuck Hassebrook, director of the Center for Rural Affairs.

Interestingly, reformers may have an ally in the White House. Former Ag Secretary Mike Johanns proposed a reform-minded farm bill, and interim Ag Secretary Chuck Conner continues to support reform.

Consider this Conner quote from last Wednesday: “… it is so logical, common sense, to simply say, ‘Don’t take the middle income tax dollars and give it in the form of an income support payment’ — and that is what our farm programs are, income support payments — ‘to the richest Americans that exist today, the wealthiest 2 percent of tax-filers.’”

As Conner also pointed out, crop subsidies in the farm program jeopardize U.S. ag exports. Developing countries claim the subsidies give U.S. farmers an unfair advantage. The World Trade Organization agreed earlier this month to launch an investigation of how the subsidies distort trade. The probe probably will take years, but could result in penalties.

Admittedly the chance of meaningful subsidy caps at this stage of the process is a long shot. But the need for reform is urgent. There is too much at stake to give up now.

--

Fattening the Farm Bill
Charleston Post Courier

Given the option of cutting Depression-era farm programs, the Senate instead voted for business as usual recently, adopting a $286 billion farm bill with subsidy programs intact. It should be an embarrassment to senators of both parties.

There was a bipartisan impulse for reform, but it was stymied by congressmen from farm states who want to keep the tap flowing from Washington, particularly with congressional elections coming up next year.

Not only does the bill retain supports for major crops, including corn, cotton, rice and soybeans, it also maintains payments to the very wealthy. Despite efforts to pare the payment eligibility to those of more modest means, the bill maintains payments to those making as much as $2.5 million.

Moreover, it provides supports to a range of other farm producers, of peanuts, sugar, wheat, milk, barley, oats and honey, according to The Washington Post. Camelina, a seed used to make biofuels, also gets favorable treatment, the Post reported. Meanwhile, many of the crops eligible for federal supports are enjoying record prices this year.

New programs include a $5.1 billion disaster relief fund and a $4.7 billion fund to insure farm revenue, the Post reported. Instead of culling outdated crop supports in favor of new farm programs, Congress included both in the farm bill — delivering the tab to the taxpayer and the consumer of farm products. Barring some major changes in conference committee, this bill richly deserves the veto that President Bush has threatened because of its fiscal excesses.

--

Big Farm Bill Needs Changes
Mansfield Ohio News Journal
Bucyrus Telegraph Forum

Amid a bevy of last-minute activity, Congress has failed taxpayers in no uncertain terms by refusing to put reasonable caps on how much assistance should go to mega-farms each year.

This, a terrible decision, one that demonstrates how difficult it is to cut federal programs once they are started.

The Senate narrowly rejected much-needed efforts to curb the annual payments to large farmers. Two Senate amendments were essentially the last hope to reduce subsidies to wealthy farmers before Congress passes a sweeping farm bill, something it has to do every five years to keep some important programs running. President Bush should veto the bill if it comes to him without reasonable limits in place. A bipartisan effort would have scaled back payments, something the Bush administration has been rightly pushing for years.

Overall, the farm bill would provide some needed relief, including aiding small farmers and funding nutrition aid programs, such as food stamps, among other benefits. New York farmers get help through dairy subsidies and through conservation programs that provide financial rewards to farmers who preserve their lands instead of selling them to developers. Yet, these are minuscule offerings in a multibillion package. As is, more than 50 percent of the federal funds go to fewer than 10 percent of the producers, the government's own figures show, and most of them are growers of corn, wheat and cotton.

One group, the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, has an insightful Web site that details the enormous cost to taxpayers, showing how one Arkansas farm received more than $15 million in subsidies in one year alone, and another in Florida got more than $13 million. Government needs to shut off the spigots, or at least reduce them to reasonable levels.

Senate Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, deserves a lot of credit for agreeing with Bush in principle on this matter and attempting to rein in the subsidies. These efforts were beaten back, for the most part, by Southern senators who like the subsidies as they are. The Senate also rejected a compelling proposal by Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., that would have phased out most of these lavish payments and, instead, provide farmers with stronger crop insurance for when times are bad. The concept of this plan -- to help family farmers in Ohio and elsewhere when they need it most -- makes more sense than forking over millions of dollars in subsidies to conglomerates.

If Congress can't cut the worst features out of this big bill, Bush shouldn't go along. He should send it back and force an override of what would be a justifiable veto.

--

Separate the Support From Subsidies
Maine Sun Journal

The farm bill, when passed by the Senate last week, landed with a plop, a cow patty on the meadow of responsible governance. Few observers of federal government found anything redeeming from the legislative largesses the bill bestow on already-wealthy "farmers."

Because the farm bill isn't just about farms. It's also about nutrition policies and low-income assistance programs, like food stamps. Leading into the Senate's vote, there was a rallying cry from Maine to approve some form of the bill, to ensure more than 164,000 of us would have the means to afford food.

The prospect of starving constituents is unpalatable. What's worse, though, is using them as chattel to negotiate subsidies for wealthy farmers. There's no reason for Mainers to potentially go hungry, while policies are deliberated for the benefit states, and people, far across the plains. Yet, they still are.

This is because the farm bill is planted in the social welfare polices of the 1930s and the 1960s, when bumper crops from America's farmers were utilized to feed America's poor. During the current deliberations, the bill has been derided as "antiquated" and out of touch with a modern farmer's needs.

Yet like an antique scythe honed to a razor's edge, the farm bill might be old, but it's still a sharp farming implement. The political power of America's farmers and their representatives, once their crops were earmarked for anti-poverty programs, grew too great to combat.

Corporate mega-farms don't need subsidies afforded by the farm bill. Neither do Manhattanites masquerading as agriculturists. More than these, however, crucial low-income programs and nutrition initiatives shouldn't be dependent on swallowing these distasteful payouts.

It's time to cut up the farm bill, to separate the social programs from the subsidies. Although the two issues were intertwined in the rooted history of the legislation, their continued co-dependence now works only to protect unneeded subsidies and political power, instead of vulnerable people.

"Much-needed increases in food and nutrition programs for our nation's low-income families should not, however, be tied to the billions of dollars in agriculture subsidies," says Sen. Susan Collins, who laudably voted against the farm bill, while co-sponsoring an amendment to cut farming subsidies.

Maine, however, perhaps needs the poverty assistance programs more than farming subsidies. It's done without the latter; it cannot survive without the former. Leaving them tied together is irrational.

The House of Representatives takes up the farm bill next. Some have equated the bill to a gluttonous pig, given all the pork it contains. Well, there's only one thing to do with a fattened hog.

Take it to the slaughter.

--

Farm Bill Falls Short
Fort Dodge, IA Messenger

The U.S. Senate has now joined the House of Representatives in passing a farm bill.

Both bills envision spending about $286 billion over a five-year period. Before Congress can send a final bill to the president’s desk, a conference committee will meet to hammer out a compromise that resolves the differences between the Senate and House versions.

While there are some sensible features in each bill, both are more a reflection of liberal, special-interest group raids on the treasury than serious farm policy.

It is especially disappointing that neither congressional body seriously addressed the need to bring rationality to agricultural subsidy programs. It is a national disgrace that subsidy arrangements designed to help family farmers have been turned into a welfare system for huge corporate farms. While subsidies can’t be eliminated abruptly without unacceptable economic consequences, there should be a congressional commitment to phasing out or at the very least seriously modifying a program that has become a national embarrassment. Neither bill makes more than nominal gestures in this direction.

The practice of building winning coalitions for bills by including payoffs to a long list of special interests isn’t new in Washington. It has reached a point, however, where — as was the case with these bills and many others — nothing resembling a serious dialogue about policy choices really takes place. That’s the sad reality of politics on Capitol Hill in the early 21st century. It’s a major reason so many Americans have become cynical about their government.

Shortly after the Senate bill passed, the White House issued the following statement deploring the failure of so many in Congress to do the job Americans elected them to perform:

‘‘The Senate approved legislation that does not represent wise stewardship of taxpayer dollars. When combined with the farm bill agreed to by the House of Representatives, Congress has approved $22.4 billion dollars in new taxes that increase the size and scope of the federal government and damage the credibility of farm programs. In addition, Congress has refused to significantly limit farm income subsidies for the wealthiest Americans. For these reasons, the president’s advisers would recommend he not sign this bill. We look forward to working with Congress to develop a fiscally responsible farm bill that includes real farm program reform while providing a strong safety net for farmers.’’

Earlier this year in reaction to the House farm bill, The Messenger urged senators to produce a bill truly in concert with the nation’s interests rather than play the disgusting special-interest payoff game their House colleagues had chosen to pursue.

Unfortunately, that has not happened.

Unless the conference committee produces a miracle we do not expect, President Bush should use his veto pen to force the Congress to try again to get this important legislation right.

--

Welfare for Millionaires
St. Louis Post-Dispatch

reprinted in the Bend OR Weekly News

Uncle Sam's farm support program is, to a disturbing extent, a handout for millionaires paid for by ordinary Americans. So it was disappointing to see Missouri's two senators vote against a very modest attempt to limit the giveaway.

As it is, in Manhattan alone, more than 500 individuals and businesses are being paid farm subsidies, according to a count by the Environmental Working Group. That's Manhattan, New York, not Manhattan, Kansas. Paul Allen, the billionaire co-founder of Microsoft, gets a farm subsidy. In the past, so have talk show host David Letterman and basketball star Scottie Pippen. Buy a spread somewhere, pay others to farm it, and even a skyscraper-dweller can get on the gravy train.

A program originally designed to help small family farmers has turned into welfare for the wealthy. Besides the occasional comedian and tech mogul, lots of money is going to very prosperous farmers who own very large farms.

As the new Farm Bill worked its way through the Senate last week, Missouri's senators voted against an amendment that would limit one kind of payment, commodity subsidies, to $250,000 per family. In Missouri, only a dozen farmers landed that much loot from the commodity program in 2005.

Had the limit passed, those farmers still would have been free to reap additional sums from other farm subsidy programs.

To her credit, Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill did support limiting payments to families earning less than $750,000 per year - after farming expenses are subtracted. That $750,000 is 14 times the median family income in Missouri. Republican Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond voted against that limit. Both senators should explain why working families should be taxed in order to send magnificent checks to the rich.

Both the subsidy and the income limit failed to garner the 60 votes needed for passage in the Senate. The Senate went on to pass the entire farm bill by a 79-14 vote. The bill now heads for negotiations with the House, which has passed a bill with a $1 million income cut-off.

With crop prices high because of demand for ethanol and biofuels, 2007 presented an ideal year to reform the subsidy program. Instead, we've seen more of the same congressional kowtowing to the farm lobby, which allied itself with urban liberals who support the bill's food assistance programs.

President George W. Bush supported an income limit of $200,000 for subsidies, and pressed hard for it. He proposed reforming today's bizarre system of farm entitlements and moving to a sensible program that helps farmers when their income drops. Such a system would better conform to international trade agreements.

Congress wouldn't go along. Now Bush is threatening to veto, both over the lack of income limits and various tax issues. This editorial page often disagrees with Bush, but on limiting farm subsidies, he is right.

--

Fighting the Farm Addiction
North County Times, CA

Our view: Local farmers get by just fine without government aid

As a farmer in San Diego County, it may be tempting to look at the billions in agricultural subsidies that go to farmers in other parts of the country with a twinge of envy. That temptation is especially strong after a disaster, the wildfires, has hurt many local growers. In the long run, however, farmers are better off without them.

A $286 billion farm bill awaits final passage in Congress and the president's signature. Absent from the bill are any attempts to reform this bloated and outdated system for supporting America's farmers.

A proposal to replace crop subsidies with free insurance for all farmers, with the billions in savings going to nutrition and environmental programs, was defeated in the Senate. Another amendment met a similar fate; it would have ended government payments to farmers who netted more than $750,000 a year (the current cutoff is $2.5 million). Without these reforms, Bush has said he'll veto the bill.

Somehow, farmers in San Diego County manage to get by without this federal largesse. Because we lack the climate, soil or water to grow the commodity crops -- wheat, rice, soybeans, cotton and corn -- that qualify for subsidies, local farmers have had to innovate by growing specialty crops, like avocados.

Both farmers and consumers are better off for it. Agriculture is the fifth-largest industry in San Diego County with a crop value of $1.5 billion. The county also has more organic farms than anywhere in the state. Because they're not reliant on huge subsidies, local farmers have the flexibility to meet changing consumer tastes.

Still, local farmers would like a little help from the feds to pay for pest control, marketing and research. They'd also like to see programs that help schools purchase locally produced fruit and vegetables and that pay farmers to protect the environment.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture also has a tree assistance grant program that local farmers harmed by this year's wildfires would like to take advantage of. That program is currently unfunded.

That's all well and good, as far as it goes, but government subsidies of any kind have proven to be highly addictive. Once established, there's a tendency for their beneficiaries to create powerful political constituencies that make any attempts to cut or eliminate a program, no matter how harmful or anachronistic, impossible.

In a way, history and environment have combined to save local farmers from the subsidies that create dependency and distort markets. In the process, they've shown farmers everywhere that it's possible to survive without subsidies. The rest of the country could learn a lesson from them.

--

Farm Bill Follies
Waco Texas Tribune

There is no good reason for American taxpayers to subsidize wealthy corporate farming operations.

Nevertheless, the U.S. Senate voted 79-14 to do just that with the passage of a $286 billion farm bill.

A temporary Great Depression-era program to assist poor American farmers has grown like a fertilized weed for 74 years.

Rather than the small family farmer trying to scratch out a living on a few acres with a mule, today’s giant agribusiness corporations are reaping millions of tax dollars because they make big campaign donations and hire the brightest and best lobbyists in Washington.

The current cutoff for farm subsidy payments only applies to farmers who earn more than $2.5 million after subtracting all expenses — hardly a small family farmer.

Wall Street analysts upgraded their outlook of farm giant Archer Daniels Midland and other agribusiness corporations following the Senate approval of another massive windfall for select farm operations.

Currently, benefits go to farmers who produce certain crops, such as corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, milk, sugar, peanuts, barley, oats and honey.

Farmers who specialized in fruits and vegetables were left out. In the new farm bill, benefits will go to growers of fruits and vegetables as well.

President Bush should follow through on his threat to veto this farm bill in an effort to bring the farm benefits and subsidies in line with actual needs.

In an election year with so many farm state votes important to both political parties, it is more likely that Bush will sign the legislation after the Senate and House negotiate away their differences.

Few people would object to subsidies and benefits going to small family farmers who suffer setbacks because of the weather and other natural circumstances.

The idea of handing out multimillion-dollar benefits to large agribusiness operations that could easily withstand setbacks caused by the weather or price fluctuations has long been strongly opposed.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the World Trade Organization has now launched an investigation on behalf of Canada and Brazil into unfair U.S. farm subsidies.

Many of the world’s poorest nations also are hurt by America’s massive farm subsidy program.

The likely outcome of a World Trade Organization ruling against the United States would be retaliation by other nations with increased tariffs on American exports designed to compensate for their losses.

America’s farm policy should be based on need and be fair to both farmers and taxpayers.

--

Seeds of a crisis; The Senate's ill-advised farm bill could create a trade catastrophe for the U.S.
Los Angeles Times

The overwhelming passage of a disastrous farm bill in the Senate last week proves that common sense doesn't stand a chance against the awesome political might of Midwest agribusiness. A grass-roots campaign to highlight the damage wrought on taxpayers, consumers and Third World economies by farm subsidies had zero impact on senators, who passed legislation that would leave the current system largely unchanged for another five years. It didn't take long for the risks of this move to become apparent.

On Monday in Geneva, the World Trade Organization launched an investigation on behalf of Canada and Brazil into trade-distorting farm subsidies in the United States -- the kind the Senate decided by a 79-14 vote should continue. Though the case could take years to work out, a victory for Canada and Brazil could be extremely costly for the U.S. economy, because those countries and any others that could show they had been damaged by our irresponsible farm policies could be allowed to raise tariffs against U.S. exports to make up for the losses.

WTO rules contain arcane formulas and categories for subsidies and tariffs, which nations use to protect domestic industries. Certain kinds of subsidies damage trade relationships, while others have little or no effect; the WTO refers to the most damaging kind as "amber box" subsidies, and harmless ones as "green box." The United States is allowed to pay about $19 billion a year in amber farm subsidies under WTO rules, and in recent years has fallen well below that ceiling. But Canada and Brazil claim that's because of an accounting trick: The U.S. is counting many payments that should fall into the amber category as green.

The worst of these are so-called countercyclical payments, in which the government sets a target price for certain crops and makes up part of the difference if the actual market price falls below it. Countercyclical payments distort trade by encouraging farmers to overproduce and dump their crops overseas at below-market prices. Yet despite adverse rulings from the WTO, Washington continues to claim that these payments are harmless.

A victory for Canada and Brazil might or might not force an overhaul of farm legislation. The WTO could prohibit countercyclical payments, in which case Washington would have to do away with them, or it could simply rule that they have to be counted as amber box subsidies. The second scenario is the scariest. Because the prices of subsidized crops are very high and rising, the government is spending little on countercyclical payments, so the U.S. is unlikely to exceed its $19-billion annual limit even if it keeps the payments in place and counts them toward its amber total. But what happens if Canada and Brazil win and crop prices later drop sharply? That could put the U.S. well above its amber ceiling, which would spark retaliatory tariffs around the world.

Placating a relative handful of commodity farmers -- who don't need the money and who aren't collecting the countercyclical payments right now anyway -- isn't worth that kind of risk, as Congress would have recognized if it weren't in thrall to the farm lobby. The price for its shortsightedness could get even steeper in the future.

--

Farm Bill is a Loser For Taxpayers, Environment
Denver Post

The $286 billion farm bill approved last week by the U.S. Senate is an insult to American taxpayers and a threat to the environment. If it reaches President Bush's desk in its current indefensible form, he should keep his promise to veto it.

Space doesn't allow listing all the reasons Bush should reject this woeful bill, so let's start with the fact that it would give welfare to millionaires.

As passed by the Senate, your hard-earned tax dollars would go to agri-businessmen who earn as much as $2.5 million a year in adjusted gross income. The Senate's only concession toward curbing this welfare for the rich was to lower that cap to $750,000 in 2010 — nearly four times as high as the $200,000 ceiling Bush had sought.

Those numbers refer to income limits on those farmers eligible for taxpayer handouts, not to the size of the giveaways themselves. A separate effort to scale back those subsidies from the current maximum of $360,000 to $250,000 was also defeated by a vote of 56-43.

We should specify that vote was 56 in favor of limiting subsidies, and just 43 against such a limit. The pork barrelers stacked the deck against the reform amendments by requiring them to garner 60 votes to pass instead of the usual 51-vote majority.

As Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group, which supported the defeated reforms, said, "This whole thing was rigged to benefit the subsidy lobby."

Very well, it's time to turn the tables and require the wastrel lobby to get a two-thirds majority before it can raid your pocketbook.

Given that the final measure cleared the Senate on a 79-14 vote, it may look like the big spenders could override such a veto. But a closer look gives hope for reformers. Colorado Republican Wayne Allard, for example, supported most reform efforts while Democrat Ken Salazar voted to keep giving welfare to millionaires. Allard approved the final bill, but we are confident he would join other fiscal conservatives and environmentally conscious senators to uphold a veto.

Then, the wastrel lobby can finally be forced to compromise and end the shameful practice of welfare for millionaires.

--

Hits & Misses: Boy, does the president need to veto this stinker

Dallas Morning News

It was bad enough that the Senate ditched an amendment this week that would have replaced farm subsidies with a better crop insurance program. But then the Senate had the audacity to kill an amendment that would have put a $250,000 limit on the amount of subsidies a farmer can receive each year. The status quo also prevailed when the Senate shot down another amendment to let only farm families that earn up to $750,000 receive crop subsidies. The House agrees with the Senate, by the way. So it looks as if Congress will keep subsidizing millionaire farmers -- and handsomely. President Bush, get out your veto pen.

--

Backward in the Senate
Washington Post

A measure to limit bloated farm subsidies is approved by a 13-vote margin. But it won't become law.

AN AMENDMENT to the 2007 farm bill that would have limited federal payments to well-to-do farmers failed in the Senate yesterday. The vote was 56-43 -- in favor of the measure. How can a bill backed by a substantial bipartisan majority not pass? Welcome to the wonderful world of agriculture politics.

The legislation, sponsored by Sens. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), would have capped government supports at $250,000 per year per farm. To be sure, that figure is more than five times the median household income in the United States. But, given that a lucky 570 farms received $250,000 or more in 2005, and that two-thirds of crop supports benefit just 10 percent of farms, this would have been progress.

But Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) did not see it that way. She dug in her heels against the amendment. According to her, it was unfair to producers of "capital-intensive" crops such as rice and cotton. It supposedly would have made U.S. agriculture less competitive in the global marketplace, potentially making us as dependent on foreign crops as we are on foreign oil -- at a time when "news reports continue to highlight cases of dangerous imported food." Left unsaid in Ms. Lincoln's statement was that 26 farms in her home state received $250,000 or more in 2005, according to government statistics compiled by the Environmental Working Group. The recipients include farms run by the Arkansas Department of Corrections, which produces cotton and other crops using convict labor. Federal subsidies to a state plantation worked by prisoners who don't get paid: now that's enterprising.

Ms. Lincoln had the right to filibuster the amendment, which could have caused a fight with only two possible outcomes: a defeat for Ms. Lincoln or a delay in the subsidy-rich farm bill. Not willing to risk either difficulty, the Democratic Senate leadership came up with a special voting rule for the Dorgan-Grassley amendment. Under the rule, the measure proceeded to an up-or-down vote, but with 60 votes -- the same number it takes to block a filibuster -- required for passage, rather than the usual simple majority. The same rule applied to proposals by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) to cut off payments for farm households with annual incomes exceeding $750,000 and by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) to trim the bloated crop insurance program. Ms. Klobuchar's measure also went down to defeat with 48 votes in favor and 47 against. Mr. Brown's lost as well.

Now Ms. Lincoln has something to crow about on her next trip to the cotton and rice fields of Arkansas. But for a Democratic Party ostensibly committed to fiscal discipline, majority rule and economic equality, this episode is a major embarrassment.

--

Farm bill a bitter harvest for just about everybody
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

The legislation moving through Congress is needlessly wasteful and has problems by the bushel: It distorts agricultural markets and hurts international trade efforts.

"A temporary solution to deal with an emergency."

That's how aid to farmers was described when it was introduced during the administration of President Franklin Roosevelt. And in the 1930s, in the Dust Bowl and Depression years, aid for struggling farmers was necessary and right. But that was then, and this is now.

Now, aid to farmers means sending taxpayer money to millionaire farmers and to those who aren't really farmers. It means major funding for farmers who grow five row crops - wheat, corn, soybeans, rice and cotton - and no subsidies for 60% of all farmers. It means that three-fourths of all subsidies go to 10% of farms. It means sending $1.1 billion, according to federal figures cited in a recent Time magazine article, to dead people.

And it means spending a proposed $286 billion or more of taxpayer money over the next several years in farm bills pending in Congress. The proposed bills - heralded by supporters as reform - in fact do very little to reform the current system and much to simply perpetuate a giant government giveaway program, welfare for corporate agriculture.

Consider these items about how Wisconsin benefits from the current system, according to the Environmental Working Group:

• 52% of all farmers and ranchers do not collect government subsidy payments in Wisconsin, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

• Among subsidy recipients, 10% collected 62% of all subsidies amounting to $2.44 billion over 11 years.

• Recipients in the top 10% averaged $19,786 in annual payments between 1995 and 2005. The bottom 80% of the recipients saw only $817 on average per year.

The farm support system no longer even helps those it was meant to help.

President Bush has threatened to veto whichever bill reaches his desk, and he should. And if Congress has any sense at all, it should sustain that veto.

But don't expect much from Congress. It already had a chance this year to start real reform of the nation's farm policy and instead decided to sit on its hands.

Last summer, Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.), along with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and a bipartisan group of other representatives, introduced an amendment to the House farm bill that would have helped curb excessive subsidy programs.

Kind's amendment would have offered a far lower income cutoff for subsidies, replaced price guarantees with a revenue-based safety net and reduced direct payments over time. The amendment also would have channeled more funds to hunger assistance, conservation, the development of rural business and reducing the federal budget deficit.

It was a golden moment for reform. Farmers are reaping near-record profits. The median farmer enjoys five times the net worth of the median non-farm household, according to Time. Crop prices have soared, in no small part because of the federal government's promotion of corn ethanol.

Fiscal conservatives and other farm program critics were ready to cut the sprawling farm subsidy program; Bush declared himself on the side of the reformers.

And as often happens in Washington, the moment passed. The House instead approved a bill that expands government largess to farmers. As we pointed out in July, the House bill was trumpeted as reform by Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) yet did little to scale back subsidies and actually increased price targets for some commodity crops. The bill also allowed farmers to make up to $1 million of adjusted gross income and still receive subsidies.

The Senate is considering an even more generous measure.

As Kind pointed out in an interview on the front page of this section, "Change is always difficult in Washington. Sometimes the hardest thing to do is change the status quo."

Not everything in the pending legislation should be tossed. In providing money, for example, to fight pollution and help farmers with conservation efforts, Congress is taking necessary steps to promote cleaner water and a healthier environment. One of the nation's primary remaining pollution problems involves runoff, a significant amount of which occurs in rural areas. Helping farmers deal with runoff is essential.

But there aren't enough such good things in the legislation to warrant passage. "Pretty much everywhere you look, farm subsidies are being increased," Daniel Sumner, an agricultural economist and adjunct scholar at a conservative think tank, told The Washington Post.

And there are a slew of smaller giveaways, including money for peanut warehousers and a new $5.1 billion disaster trust fund to cover weather losses of farmers and ranchers. That measure is being pushed by Western senators, whose states have been plagued by droughts and other natural disasters.

The nation's farm policy is not only unfair and a waste of money. It's hurting the country's health by helping to foster an obesity epidemic through its crop-support policy. It's hurting the environment and contributing to energy and water shortages. It's hurting free trade by supporting an international system of protectionism for agriculture.

The initial farm supports provided by Congress in the 1930s may have made sense. Today, the system not only makes no sense at all as good government policy, but it is in fact a blight on the nation.

President Bush, veto this bill.

--

The Farm Bill
Modernize U.S. crop subsidy system
Philadelphia Inquirer

When Congress returns to work next month, lawmakers need to improve a farm bill by modernizing the way taxpayers subsidize crops.

The $286 billion farm bill approved by the Senate preserves many outdated rules and overcompensates big corporate farms, not the family farm of lore. Five crops in about 30 congressional districts receive a major chunk of the subsidies. More than half the aid goes to large, commercial agribusinesses.

What began as a Depression-era safety net for the nation's breadbasket has grown into a corporate welfare program for some of the richest agricultural producers. About 10 percent of the nation's farms receive 75 percent of the subsidies.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.) has a smart plan aimed at fixing the inequities. His proposal would eliminate agricultural subsidies for commodity crops like corn, soybeans, cotton and wheat. Instead, it would create a crop-loss insurance program, ensuring that all farmers could recoup up to 85 percent of the cost of their lost harvests.

Under the current law, growers of fruits and vegetables - which account for most of New Jersey's crops - can't receive subsidies. Lautenberg's proposal would save billions of dollars wasted in part through incentives that reward farmers who plant on unproductive land.

The Senate bill allocates more than $5 billion for "permanent disaster relief." In other words, the checks keep coming no matter what happens.

The House version of the farm bill isn't much better. It provides subsidies for single farmers who earn up to $1 million, or farm couples who make $2 million per year. The Senate bill has no income caps for farmers. The current cutoff is $2.5 million.

That's enough to keep the John Deere and the Mercedes running for another year.

Fortunately, President Bush has threatened to veto the current legislation unless it reforms the subsidy system and eliminates certain tax hikes.

Congressional leaders need to craft a sensible, fiscally responsible farm bill that really helps farmers in need.

--

Our position: U.S. senators, including Martinez, should have OK'd improved farm bill

Orlando Sentinel

The Senate has plowed under the best hope for badly needed reforms in U.S. farm policy.

Under that policy, the federal government pays billions of dollars a year in agricultural subsidies -- with most going to large farms, whether they need it or not. It's a drain on taxpayers and unfair to most farmers, who get little or nothing. It spurs overproduction and wastes resources.

Yet in passing its farm bill, the Senate rejected the most promising alternative, from Republican Richard Lugar. It would have replaced subsidies with insurance for farmers who truly need help. Florida's senators split on the proposal: Democrat Bill Nelson voted for reform, and Republican Mel Martinez voted for the status quo.

Mr. Martinez said the Senate farm bill has lower subsidies than the one Congress passed in 2002. That only makes this bill less atrocious than the last one.

Mr. Martinez also said the Lugar proposal would have "unilaterally disarmed" U.S. farmers when their competition in other countries is collecting higher subsidies. But Congress should be taking the lead on fixing farm policy instead of waiting on other countries.

Finally, Mr. Martinez said Florida farmers have urged him to support the farm bill. Drafters of the legislation bought their support by offering them a small fraction of the money earmarked for farmers of other crops in other states. But Mr. Lugar's proposal also would have made aid available for Florida farmers, if they needed it.

Senators, including Mr. Martinez, should have given reform in farm policy a chance to take root.

--

56 voices of reason; Tightwad-scold coalition bodes well for reform

San Diego Union-Tribune

When the House passed a $286 billion farm bill earlier this year that added billions in new subsidies to new crops, the obstacles to a rational, sensible U.S. agriculture policy seemed bigger than ever. But a surprising bipartisan coalition has emerged in the Senate to fight for reform. If President Bush sticks to his promise to veto any farm bill that doesn't reduce the subsidies going to a prosperous industry that doesn't need them, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have no choice but to compromise.

This week, 56 senators -- including, thankfully, California Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer -- backed an amendment cutting some farm payments by more than 30 percent and closing a loophole that allowed farmers to receive subsidies even when they didn't grow any crops. Because of a filibuster threat by farm-state senators, Senate leaders said any amendment had to get 60 votes, so it was dropped. Nevertheless, when more than half the Senate says the status quo must go, it's clear that the momentum is on the side of the reformers -- finally.

The main reason is the growing understanding among core constituencies in each party that our present farm policy is an abomination. Fiscal conservative Republicans see subsidies to a thriving industry as an outrage in an era of huge budget deficits. Nanny-state Democrats think it's outrageous to subsidize corn, soybeans and wheat because doing so directly subsidizes the mass production of the cheap high-sugar, high-fat, high-calorie processed foods that are a key culprit in the fattening of America.

Between the tightwads, the scolds and a president newly eager to veto irresponsible legislation, the prospects for genuine change in agriculture policy have rarely seemed better. This development may be decades overdue, but it's still great news.

--

Farm Bill Passes Senate With All The Subsidies


Highlands Today, Sebring, Fla.

The U.S. Senate passed the much debated farm bill, with just about everything everyone has been begging them to toss out of it. It's just one more example of our elected officials ignoring what we're saying. Let's hope it gets changed while working out compromises with the House and, if necessary, President Bush vetoes it.

Rich mega-farm corporations and millionaire farmers stand to gain the most from federal subsidies sprinkled throughout the Senate-approved farm bill. Big Corn, Big Wheat, Big Everything makes a killing, just as they always do on this welfare of the worst kind.

This farm bill does nothing to cut the fat cats out of subsidies. Just about every American has pleaded with Congress to finally trim the welfare out of the farm bill, but our bought-and-paid-for politicians just can't manage it.

If this bill makes it through, and is signed into law for the five years farm bills are supposed to be in effect, Americans should toss out every member of the House and Senate who voted for it. Until voters send such a message, we'll just keep getting the same old thing every time.

--

Eliminate farm subsidies

Deseret Morning News - Salt Lake City

We hope President Bush has the sense to hold to his promise to veto the farm subsidy bill working its way to his desk.

At a time when crop prices are higher than ever, both the Senate and House versions would increase subsidies and expand the crops to which they apply. Not only would the bills primarily enrich the already-rich, they would continue to prohibit struggling Third World countries from getting ahead.

Even former president Jimmy Carter, hardly a hard-line conservative, wrote a recent opinion piece in the Washington Post decrying this aspect of farm subsidies. His Carter Center works with Third World farmers and has seen the effects of U.S. subsidies, which he said encourage overproduction. U.S. cotton subsidies cost sub-Saharan farmers $302 million, a 2002 Oxfam International report said. And Carter notes that 80 percent of those subsidies go to the richest 10 percent of cotton farmers in this country.

Other, more traditionally conservative voices have noted how the subsidies benefit wealthy absentee farmers, while the less wealthy people who lease their land and do the actual farming don't do nearly as well. The Wall Street Journal referred to a map from the Environmental Working Group that shows the homes of 562 farmers who receive annual government subsidies -- all of which are in the heart of New York City. The Journal also recently noted that Scottie Pippen, David Letterman and Ted Turner have received subsidies.

Farm subsidies were started during the Great Depression as a way to keep the poor from going bankrupt and having their farms sold at auction. That need is long gone. Today, subsidies are tools with which to make the rich even richer, and to protect political power. Only about 2 percent of Americans live on farms these days. Most subsidies go to large corporate farms.

People who don't understand the free market argue that subsidies bring stability to volatile markets. But the crops not covered by subsidies have enjoyed stable markets through the years. Now, however, the Senate bill would expand subsidies to vegetable and fruit growers, without anyone being able to demonstrate need.

Two senators, Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., had a great plan to replace subsidies with a crop insurance plan that would protect farmers against catastrophe. That was scuttled.

Bush said he would veto anything that doesn't limit subsidies to farmers earning about $200,000 or less. A better idea would be to eliminate them entirely and let the market rule farming, as it does so many other aspects of the economy.

--

Amber Waves of Green

Wall Street Journal

Money may not grow on trees, but it's close enough for some gentleman farmers. Late last week, the Senate killed an attempt to limit federal subsidies flowing to farmers in the country's top income brackets.

Under the amendment sponsored by Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar, eligible recipients of the government's largesse would have been capped at incomes of $750,000 per year. How draconian. That's not even halfway to the White House's proposal to end the subsidies at adjusted gross income of $200,000, a level Democrats often use to define the "rich." The amendment nonetheless went down by a revealing 48-47, well short of the 60 votes needed to defeat a filibuster.

Naturally, Senators who voted to keep subsidies for the super-rich included those from the big cotton and rice states, such as Arkansas Democrats Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor. Kent Conrad, the populist "deficit hawk" from North Dakota, also joined a total of 12 Democrats in opposing limits on aid for big agribusiness. Even such vocal conservatives as Richard Burr (R., N.C.), Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) and Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) voted against capping the federal handout. Ditto for outgoing pork captain Trent Lott, and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), among 35 Republicans all told.

The Senate then voted overwhelmingly to pass the farm bill, which will have to be reconciled with the House version, where the income cap is a mere $2 million. Farmers will reap around $20 billion this year in federal handouts -- despite strong crop prices and rising land values -- and two-thirds will go to the wealthiest 10% of farms. Politicians justify a more powerful government in the name of helping the poor, but the farm bill proves once again that in practice it typically serves the powerful.

--

Close Doesn't Count

Baltimore Sun

In the Senate last week, history was in the making, and almost a moment to be proud of. A majority of senators voted to shrink federal crop subsidies to wealthy farmers and landowners, and well over a third favored scrapping the subsidy program altogether.

But close only counts in horseshoes. Those long-overdue reforms, which would have put some of the savings into nutrition and conservation programs, needed a three-fifths majority to pass. Corporate farms and land conglomerates still have enough support among lawmakers from the South and Midwest to keep the agri-welfare system intact for another five years.

Perhaps it's ungracious to complain. Maryland comes in for a nice chunk of change to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay through programs included in the Senate version of the farm bill. The more than $200 million over five years falls far short of the $504 million for the bay watershed approved by the House in its version of the legislation, but it provides a nice floor for negotiations between the two chambers.

Maryland, its farmers and most of the country would have fared better, though, if the crop subsidy reforms had gone through. Both Maryland senators, Barbara A. Mikulski and Benjamin L. Cardin, were among the ranks of would-be reformers.

This latest farm bill update continues a practice that awards more than two-thirds of the crop subsidies to one-third of farmers, who are generally not in small-plot states such as Maryland.

Most of the measure's $286 billion cost is devoted to food stamps and other nutrition programs, which have been improved in the Senate bill to raise monthly minimum benefits and to encourage healthier diets, including fruit and vegetables. And for the first time, fruit and vegetable farmers will also be eligible for subsidies.

These improvements, though, don't justify continuing payments to farmers regardless of income at a time when crop prices are high. President Bush proposed to limit payments to farmers with annual incomes no higher than $200,000; the House set a limit of $1 million. The Senate mustered a ceiling of $750,000, but only for part-time farmers or absentee landlords, and not until 2010.

If the final version of the farm bill fails to make more progress toward subsidy reform, Mr. Bush has threatened a veto. But people in need of the emergency food aid and the boost in their food stamp buying power promised by the House and Senate versions of the legislation shouldn't be caught in the middle of this dispute.

The White House and congressional negotiators should commit themselves to speedy agreement on a bolder path toward reform well before spring planting season.

--

You're taxed to pay others

Chattanooga Times Free Press

How do you like the idea that tax money is taken from you to subsidize some others -- up to $360,000 each?

Or did you even know that is happening?

Not only is that part of the $286 billion farm bill in Congress but the Senate voted last week not to scale back the subsidy payments from a maximum of $360,000 each to "only" $250,000 per recipient.

This all started back during the Great Depression, to help "poor farmers." But now members of Congress keep on paying subsidies with your tax money to buy votes -- and not just to help "poor" farmers, as the $360,000 maximum indicates.

Much of your tax money for farm subsidy payments goes to big corporate farms, and to people who own large expanses of land but never get their hands in the dirt at all. Taxpayers are victimized.

In fact, the Senate last week voted 58 against and only 37 for replacing farm subsidies with government-paid (meaning taxpayer-paid) insurance that would have guaranteed farmers 85 percent of their anticipated crop revenue and 80 percent of their average adjusted gross income for the previous five years.

The government shouldn't be paying subsidies to anyone with your tax money. But it does, not only spending your tax money but also artificially raising the prices you have to pay at the store.
Farm subsidies are something like drug addiction in that the recipients get "hooked." It would not be advisable to pull the rug suddenly out from under farm operations that have become addicted to taxpayer-financed subsidies. So what would be a good solution?

Instead of continuing subsidy payments at the present high level, they should be cut 20 percent or 25 percent per year, ending all subsidies in four or five years.

But Congress isn't thinking about doing that. It's continuing to tax you and raise your prices to buy votes by subsidizing others. That's expensive and wrong.

--

Endless manure

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

The U.S. Senate once again has failed to slow the nonstop pigout on multibillion-dollar farm subsidies. Senators of both parties overwhelmingly rejected two attempts to limit the annual handouts to Big Agribusiness.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, reminds that subsidies were not created to send multimillion-dollar payments to giant corporate farms or pay people who haven't farmed in decades. Never mind that, according to The Heritage Foundation, Mr. Grassley has received $225,041 in farm subsidies since 1995.

Over the same period, Fortune 500 companies have harvested millions. John Hancock Life Insurance received $2.8 million. Westvaco pulled in more than $534,000. A "hobby farmer," David Rockefeller was paid nearly $554,000. Ted Turner received nearly $207,000.

More than 90 percent of the wealthfare goes to growers of corn, wheat, cotton, soybeans and rice. Others, including struggling small growers, usually get nothing.

And yet most thrive without subsidies. Farms have one of the lowest failure rates of any industry and farm incomes are setting records. The average farm household earns $81,420 and has a net worth of $838,875.

And yet the Senate passed a $286 billion five-year farm bill expanding subsidies for growers. Never mind the adverse effect of government subsidies on the cost of food.

Big Government is ensuring that Big Agribusiness never runs out of manure.

--

Farm Bill: One step forward, two steps back

Kennebec Journal, ME

Where can you find Republicans sounding like Socialists, farmers from Zip Code 90210 getting million dollar taxpayer subsidies and talk of poor people who are supposed to get by on a little more than a dollar a meal in food stamps?

Why, the U.S. Senate, of course.

This week, the Senate broke through a six-week logjam and finally passed a Farm Bill that contains some improvements in the nation's public nutrition programs such as Food Stamps and the Emergency Food Assistance Program. But the price of doing so was the continuation of taxpayer subsidies for well-to-do corporate farmers who are currently getting record prices for their commodity crops.

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins sounded like a very regretful Robin Hood last week after passage of the bill:

"I am particularly disappointed that this bill does not include an amendment, that I supported, that would have capped payments to farmers at $250,000. In addition, another amendment that was defeated would have prohibited payments to individuals who earn more than $750,000 per year. These amendments would have provided assistance to farmers who truly need the help, and denied assistance to giant corporate farms and individuals who unfairly receive it.

"The defeat of these amendments ensures that taxpayer subsidies in this new farm bill will continue to flow to the largest and wealthiest farmers in the country, while potato, apple, and blueberry growers in Maine will receive very little assistance. Had the farm subsidy programs been reformed, significantly more money would have been available for nutrition and conservation programs."

Sen. Olympia Snowe, unlike Collins, voted against capping subsidy payments to farmers at $250,000, the last and most likely-to-pass of four ill-fated amendments aimed at reforming commodity subsidies in the Farm Bill. While Snowe voted in favor of the earlier and more radical reform measure -- prohibiting payments to farmers who earn more than $750,000 a year -- that one was universally deemed dead on arrival.

Programs for the hungry got a boost in the Senate bill, but there's a fundamental problem with what they got. While Food Stamp benefits will be increased and eligibility expanded, and food pantries will get more food from the feds after years of decline, those increases only last five years -- and then they stop. Which means that unless more money is found to pay for nutrition programs at the end of those five years, all the families and individuals who became eligible for food stamps under the latest farm bill will then lose their benefits.

Of course, had reform of the subsidy payments to well-to-do farmers been passed, that money could have been available much sooner for the nation's hungry. Consider this: The Government Accountability Office recently discovered that the U.S. Department of Agriculture had paid $1.1 billion to dead farmers' estates and companies between 1999 and 2005. That's one of those extreme examples that normally would prove the exception to the rule. But in the case of the Farm Bill, the agricultural subsidies given to farmers in this country really have gone to millionaires in New York City and Beverly Hills (who are partners in corporate farms), as well as midwestern farmers who earn up to $2.5 million a year.

It's not over yet for the Farm Bill. The Senate and House bills must be reconciled and both subsidy-heavy measures face the threat of a veto from the president, who has uncharacteristically sided with reformists in an attempt to gut the commodity payment programs.

That bargaining will likely take place in the early part of next year. In the meantime, those in the majority in both the House and Senate who voted for the current measure should be acknowledged for sending at least temporary help to those who need it (the hungry) while continuing permanent help for those (well-remunerated farmers) who don't.

--

Farm bill fattens fat cats' wallets

Austin American-Statesman Editorial

When it comes to handing out taxpayers' money to farmers, Congress will not discriminate: It will fork out billions to the richest farm operations - not just the small and family-owned farms - and members of both parties do it.

Every five years, Congress takes up legislation renewing the nation's massive program of subsidizing farmers. The bill includes other significant measures, such as funding for food stamps and land conservation. This year's version will authorize spending about $286 billion over the next five years.

Most Americans probably have no problem with subsidizing small and family farms, though few of those remain, to cope with unexpected outbreaks of crop disease, drought and other destructive weather, and a roller-coaster market. Farmers invest a great deal of time and money annually on a risky venture.

But most Americans would not care to pay subsidies to wealthy farmers - particularly partnerships and corporations - that are quite capable of riding out a bad year on their own, any more than they would care to subsidize, say, a Wall Street banking firm that makes a bad bet on subprime mortgages. Nor do they care to subsidize nonfarmers who invest in agriculture as a sideline.

As Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said last week, farm subsidies were "not created to send multimillion-dollar payments to giant corporate farms, or payments to people who haven't been near a farm in decades." But an amendment, sponsored by Grassley and Sen. Byran Dorgan, D-N.D., to lower the cap on such payments to $250,000 per married couple, down from the current limit of $360,000, failed to muster the 60 votes needed to pass. Another reform amendment, by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., would have banned subsidies to farmers making more than $750,000 a year, also failed.

Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas Republicans, voted against the amendments and supported the bill. A Cornyn spokesman said the bill makes major changes in the complex subsidy program that will cut taxpayer-funded government by 44 percent, and that Texas cotton and rice farmers especially need the help. A Hutchison spokesman said she felt the proposed amendments went too far with reform.

Reform groups, though, say the bill is mostly business as usual, with the bulk of the subsidy payments going to major farm companies and the wealthy, not small farm families.

The Bush administration has threatened to veto the farm bill because of its extraordinary cost. First, though, the House and Senate must reconcile the differences in their bills.

The guess here is that, in the end, not much will change. President Bush likely will not want to hurt Republican farm state allies in Congress, just as most Democrats won't want to anger farm state voters in a presidential election year. Taxpayers will pick up the tab come April 15.

--

Let's all get a chance to belly up to the farm-bill trough

Arizona Republic

Soowee! If the Senate's subsidy-larded farm bill were a pig, it could barely waddle to the trough. Well, if Congress insists on these outdated handouts, let's all get a shot at them. I personally am willing to be paid for not writing. Plus, I'm willing right now to accept an annual income cap of $750,000 for "non-farmers" to qualify for benefits. The Senate would phase it in to ease the pain for folks used to the current $2.5 million threshold. Hurt me - I can take it.

Kathleen Ingley, editorial writer

--

Farm Bill enriches those who don't need help

Sensible caps on aid didn't make it into this budget-busting, $286 billion monstrosity.

Portland Maine Herald/Telegram

The Senate approved a bill on Friday that doesn't just have wasteful pork, but spends unnecessarily on just about every other product that comes from a farm.

The 2007 reauthorization of the Farm Bill perpetuates wasteful spending and federal largesse to special interests that don't need the money. President Bush should veto this measure, or a similar one, should it reach his desk following a House-Senate conference.

Maine's Republican senators split on the bill, with Sen. Olympia Snowe in support and Sen. Susan Collins voting against it.

The bill is a budget-buster, costing the federal government a whopping $286 billion over five years. For its money, the federal government will get the opportunity to subsidize farmers who earn hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. President Bush has rightly called for capping farm subsidies for families earning $200,000 or more. Right now, that cap doesn't kick in until a family earns $2.5 million.

While the Senate bill does contain money for some of Maine's specialty farmers, that doesn't redeem it. Just because a bill will send money to Maine is no reason to support it. In fact, this is a fundamental flaw with how Congress works. Spending proposals are larded up with enough goodies until there's something for nearly everyone.

So attractive was this bill to various constituencies that only 14 senators opposed it, while 79 supported it.

That's enough votes to override Bush's veto, but fortunately the tally was closer in the House, where the vote on a similar -- though not identical -- measure was 231-191.

It is long past time for there to be a fundamental shift in U.S. agriculture policy. American farmers are among the most productive in the world and can compete without the wasteful subsidies handed out by the federal government. This notion has gained some currency in Washington -- there were serious attempts during the debate to limit subsidies given to the wealthiest farmers -- but parochial politics keeps winning.

No doubt, when a bill makes it way to President Bush in the New Year following a House-Senate conference, the White House will be under pressure from Republicans warning that a veto could affect the party's chances in the November elections.

But there's also something else that could harm the GOP come the fall, and that's an inability to stand by its principle of fiscal restraint.

The latest farm bill is more of the same from Washington, and its passage suggests change will not be coming easily or quickly.

--

Start Over on Farm Bill

Wisconsin State Journal

President Bush should veto the 2007 farm bill and send Congress back to work with the following assignment:

Stop clinging to the self-defeating, subsidy-bloated farm policy of the past. Produce a modern bill to support agriculture in an era shaped by the global economy, growing demand for biofuels, an urgent need for conservation and an imperative to rein in federal spending.

Congress should respond by sustaining the veto and returning to the policy drawing board.

At stake is legislation that for the next five years will govern agriculture -- a $28.6 billion-a-year industry in Wisconsin.

The 2007 farm bill presented Congress with an opportunity to cultivate a new way of thinking about farm policy.

However, the Senate and House each suffered from crop failure. They produced separate versions of a $286 billion, five-year bill based on the tired, costly policies of a bygone age that benefit a minority at the expense of the majority.

A committee will reconcile differences between the versions to produce a final product that will be sent to Bush.

Granted, lawmakers made some improvements, including increases in conservation and support for biofuels.

But the bill remains based on subsidies that no longer benefit taxpayers, consumers or farmers in the long run.

Subsidies promote overproduction, which lowers prices, which triggers more subsidies in a self-defeating cycle that cost taxpayers more than $20 billion in 2005.

To combat overproduction, other programs limit planting and imports. The result is higher prices for consumers.

Subsidies are concentrated on large wheat, cotton, corn, soybean and rice farmers. Consequently, other farmers are at a disadvantage. And many subsidies violate international trade agreements. Other nations respond with trade barriers that close off markets to American agriculture, just as the global economy makes international sales more important.

Alternatives to subsidies could be used to build a farm bill suited to the new era, if members of Congress will step up to champion reform.

Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., helped lead a bipartisan effort to end subsidies in favor of a more cost-effective safety net to cushion steep price declines. At the heart of the plan were government-funded accounts that farmers could tap to cover a price collapse or to buy crop or revenue insurance.

Congress should revisit that plan along with others that offer promise to phase out subsidies, boost conservation programs and support the development of biofuels.

The farm bill headed to Bush 's desk passed with enough votes that backers claim it is veto-proof. It 's time for members of Congress to change their minds.

Accept a veto. Stand up to the interests vested in the policies of the past. Give American agriculture a new direction that will benefit farmers, consumers and taxpayers.

What does Wisconsin get?

Wisconsin ranked 15th among states in farm subsidies received, 1995-2005. The state 's total: $3.9 billion. Source: Environmental Working Group analysis of USDA data.

--

Harvest of shame: Senate farm bill feeds subsidies to agribusiness

Salt Lake City Tribune

If you want to know why the American people have such a low opinion of Congress, do a little reading about the $286 billion farm bill the Senate passed on Friday.

The bill expands the already bloated subsidies for wheat, barley, oats and soybeans, despite record prices for those crops. It does not reduce direct payments, which many farmers receive for simply owning land and growing crops on it.

These antiquated policies subsidize rich investors, feed the unhealthy American diet, distort international trade and enable the rape of the environment. Yet the Senate rejected attempts to reform this entitlement program for agribusiness, despite the willingness of about half the Senate to vote for at least some reforms.

Both Republicans and Democrats supported efforts to plow under this archaic, wasteful system. President Bush has threatened to veto the bill. But so far, none of these pressures have been able to overcome the determination of powerful lawmakers from farm states in the South and Great Plains to bring home the bacon to Big Ag for another five years.

Ultimately, seeds of reform withered in the arid wasteland of the Senate.

Think the House bill might be better? Forget it. In many ways, it's worse.

Under current law, subsidies are banned for those farmers with incomes above $2.5 million who make less than three-quarters of their income farming. President Bush wanted to cut that ceiling to $200,000, and another amendment would have capped total payments at $250,000 per farm or end all payments to growers who make more than $750,000 from full-time farming.

The bill passed by the Senate would, by 2010, eliminate subsidies to farmers whose adjusted gross income tops $750,000 and who earn less than two-thirds of their income from agriculture.

So long as subsidies continue, however, they will distort the market. Advocates for subsistence farmers in developing nations argue, rightly, that U.S. farm welfare makes it impossible for local growers to compete with subsidized U.S. commodities. The families of impoverished farmers undercut by U.S. subsidies go hungry.

So, bumper crops fed by pork in the U.S. Sena