American taxpayers will be on the hook another five years for an outdated, inequitable and wasteful system of farm subsidies unless advocates of reform stand up soon in the Senate.

The Senate Agriculture Committee is poised this month to take up its version of the next five-year farm bill. So far, it's looking like members of this panel will pass a measure that only tweaks the system, as their House counterparts did earlier this year.

Farm subsidies, which began as a temporary program during the Great Depression, have swollen into a multibillion-dollar boondoggle. They disproportionately benefit a select group of large and prosperous operations, not small and struggling family farms.

Subsidies also squander natural resources by fueling overproduction. They punish farmers in poor countries that can't afford their own subsidies, and impede U.S. trade negotiations.

Guardians of the current system are banking on the fact that its mind-numbing complexity will protect it from an overdue overhaul. But focus on the forest, instead of the trees, and the system is indefensible.

Nearly 90 percent of subsidies go to farmers of just five crops: corn, wheat, cotton, soybeans and rice. And just 10 percent of subsidy recipients raked in almost three quarters of the $164 billion paid from 1995 to 2005. Meanwhile, two-thirds of U.S. farmers and ranchers never got a penny.

The House left this inequitable system largely intact in the farm bill it passed in July. A majority couldn't even bring itself to endorse President George W. Bush's proposal to bar farmers earning more than $200,000 a year from collecting subsidies. Instead, the House set an income ceiling of $1 million per farmer.

The House added some spending for fruit and vegetable growers, which would benefit more Florida farms. But it didn't dismantle more generous programs for the traditional favorites under the current system. It actually sweetened the program of price supports for the U.S. sugar industry that makes its product more expensive for American consumers and food manufacturers.

Reform-minded senators already have a far better option for farm policy. Indiana Republican Richard Lugar has proposed phasing out subsidies for a system of accounts to stabilize incomes for farmers. This new approach would better target farmers in need. It would save billions that could beef up funding for land conservation, renewable-fuels production and hunger programs.

If the Senate Agriculture Committee gives its blessing to business as usual, it will be up to other senators to lead the way to a fairer, more effective and fiscally responsible farm policy. Florida's pair, Democrat Bill Nelson and Republican Mel Martinez, need to stand with the reformers.