Don't feel the greed: End subsidies to wealthy
Des Moines Register, November 9, 2007

Raymond Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America

The farm bill before the Senate this week marks a new height in congressional hypocrisy and a new low in the inability of our elected officials to produce rational policy.

The fact is that farm programs - designed with the best of intentions more than half a century ago - have outlived their usefulness. When agriculture was the foundation of our economy and the country was suffering from drought and depression, the helping hand of farm subsidies made sense. But today, it's impossible to justify the generous handouts to largely wealthy producers that will result if the Senate Agriculture Committee's version of the bill passes without significant change.

Commodity prices today are strong. And most farmers - indeed, most Americans - would agree that under these conditions, the "helping hand" of farm programs shouldn't be needed.

Then why commit $42 billion of hard-earned taxpayer money to farm subsidies over the next five years? The simple answer is greed.

The pigs at the trough continue to promote and, in some cases, expand generous handouts from American taxpayers, even when markets are strong. They rationalize this greed by arguing that it is essential to the survival of America's family farmers. But in reality, America's family farmers realize little if any benefit from commodity programs. In fact, 75 percent of all American farmers don't even participate in the commodity programs. Of the 25 percent who do, most of the dollars go to the largest 10 percent.

This grave disparity ensures that wealthy producers get wealthier while other farmers get an ever shrinking piece of the pie. Since subsidy payments continue to be made based on production rather than need, big farms enhance their ability to get payments by buying out smaller farms and renting added acres. This concentrates farm wealth in the hands of a few. You don't even have to be a farmer to receive subsidies, nor do you have to actively farm to get a check from Uncle Sam.

Since money continues to flow to wealthier farmers for subsidies they don't need, other farm programs that benefit more farmers - and family farmers - come up short. Conservation programs designed to improve water quality and nutrition programs that help feed hungry children and their families get far less than they need. The same is true for programs designed to improve energy security, rural communities and beginning and disadvantaged farmers.

Advocates for this farm bill will point to increases for conservation, nutrition and energy research. But the truth is that the increases resulted from raising taxes while continuing federal farm subsidies largely unchanged.

How do we stop this madness?

The Senate will consider several alternatives to the farm bill brought to the floor by the Senate Agriculture Committee.

The FRESH Act, a comprehensive reform package developed by Sen. Richard Lugar from Indiana is an important option that would finally change farm payments so that they are based on need when farm revenues are down due to changes in weather or market conditions. This amendment is supported by a broad coalition, including taxpayer and environmental groups, members of the religious community and even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This amendment would free up billions of dollars for important priorities such as conservation, nutrition programs and energy security.

Another alternative will be offered by Iowa's Chuck Grassley and North Dakota's Byron Dorgan. This amendment would simply cap payments to farmers at $250,000 per farmer. Savings from this amendment could be reallocated to conservation and other public priorities.

With our nation's debt mounting, the dollar falling and the disparity between rich and poor in America growing, the Senate has a rare opportunity to promote rational and long overdue reform in farm policy. Farm programs were designed to help farmers in times of need, not to feed wealthy farmers' greed.