Feeding at the trough

Reformers still lack the votes to end subsidies for mega-farms

The Rocky

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

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. So unless President Bush vetoes the final legislation, it's possible that farm programs will continue to produce abundant cash harvests for the well-to-do, and higher food prices for American consumers.

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, R-Ind., 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, including the support of Colorado Republican Wayne Allard.

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, by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., 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, D-Iowa, 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.

• December 26, 2007

  9:44 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Faux_Noise writes:

  All the winging at welfare on this website is directed against poor people who can't make ends meet in today's zero sum economy: Constantly crying about socialism.

  Have at it righties: Tell us how bad corporate welfare is!

• December 26, 2007

  9:58 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Spencer writes:

  There are no bigger welfare queens than corporate farms.

• December 26, 2007

  11:58 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Dan2 writes:

  How else can we produce enough ethanol if we don't bribe the farmers with their corporate welfare? We talk about the "greedy oil companies," but ADM receives. CATO estimates ADM, which saw profit from JUST ETHANOL raise 79%, received 30 cents on the dollar.

  Maybe the CORN lobby should be our next "evil target?"

• December 26, 2007

  2:13 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  ScienceGuy writes:

  No Doubt.

  Until cellulosic ethanol distillation of Switchgrass is a reality, ethanol fuel is just a boondoggle.

• December 27, 2007

  12:07 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Brain writes:

  We should only be funding farmers that are having hard times due to drought/bad weather; a "rainy day" fund for instance.