Farm Sense:
Can Congress write a farm bill without wasteful subsidies?
Washington Post, Washington, D.C.
May 20, 2007

Every half a decade or so, Congress considers what to do with a massive system of federal handouts that enriches a narrow band of American businessmen. Too often, after a fair amount of acrimony and spectacular displays of local-interest, pork-barrel politics, the system is altered -- sometimes for the good, sometimes not -- but not reformed as dramatically as it ought to be. The issue, of course, is American farm subsidies, an inefficient, trade-distorting program of price and income support included in the expiring farm bill; a new one is being prepared. How the new Democratic leadership decides to handle the coming debate will be a critical test of its commitment to responsible spending and to a range of worthy social programs in the agriculture budget that deserve federal money more than subsidy programs do.

The contours of the debate are beginning to emerge. Rep. Collin C. Peterson (D-Minn.), chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, says that subcommittees will begin marking up a draft farm bill this week. So far, it appears that the draft will not include a transfer of money from subsidy programs into conservation projects, which many lawmakers would like to see. Mr. Peterson has also said that his committee, which critics generally regard as subsidy-friendly, will draft the legislation alone; he insisted that any tampering on the House floor "would be a recipe for chaos." This makes it likely that fundamental reform of the subsidy system will not happen.

In contrast, Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and Reps. Ron Kind (D-Wis.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) and Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) have proposed to curtail farm subsidies. The group favors setting up "income stabilization accounts," to which the government would direct money currently going into certain subsidy programs. These payments would then phase out over several years. Highly generous federal farm insurance programs would remain to protect American farmers from major problems, while money from the accounts could be withdrawn to pay for minor income fluctuations. The resulting savings -- $55 billion over 10 years, according to supporters -- would go into debt relief, renewable energy, environmental stewardship and neglected programs such as food stamps.

Mr. Lugar and his allies in the House are on a sensible track, and it is critical that their ideas get a fair hearing. The farm bill can be a vehicle for investing heavily in important priorities such as rural conservation or food stamps for low-income Americans, without depleting the federal bank account or violating the Democrats' responsible pay-go budget rules -- but only if Congress is willing to make agriculture spending more rational. If the House Agriculture Committee does not move in that direction, the full House should.