Farm Bill Anger in Editorials

Congress is stalled over the cost of a new permanent disaster bill for farmers.

While in many ways, a permanent disaster bill may be more sensible than the annual emergency disaster bills that Congress has passed to supplement past farm bill support, consumers and non-farm policymakers are scratching their heads about the trio of support provided to farmers: there are the subsidies (many of which continue to be paid, even when prices are high); there is the heavily subsidized crop insurance program; and there is the new push for a standing disaster assistance program.

For some time now, critics have questioned why we need to provide so much financial support to those who are already at the top of the income scale. But, now that food costs are rising dramatically, the anger is also rising.

On March 21, the LA Times published an editorial, Farm Bill Feeds Greed, with the headline, "As the very poor struggle just to eat, the farm bill before Congress boosts corporate welfare." The editorial argues that “Soaring prices for corn, wheat and other agricultural commodities aren't just contributing to inflation, they're increasing hunger and misery among the poor. Confronted with a chance to help, Congress is instead on a path to boost corporate welfare for wealthy farmers."

Last March 13, the Wall Street Journal published a Review and Outlook editorial entitled Amber Waves of Green that provides a scathing criticism of the farm bill, in particular its large subsidies for traditional program crops. The article concludes with the following:

The only good news is that President Bush is threatening to veto this budget buster over its taxes, trade distortions and subsidies for the rich. The veto threat is at least causing the Members to think twice, and may actually improve the bill. But the best outcome would be if this monster died of its own, greedy weight.

In a rebuttal to the Wall Street Journal article, Senators Conrad and Chambliss submitted a letter to the editor, alleging that the farm bill “reforms farm programs, invests in national priorities and does not raise taxes.” But is there enough reform, and how many budgetary tricks will be required to fund it?

There are many good aspects to the farm bill - new conservation efforts, nutrition programs, and help for organic producers to name a few. But these efforts are at risk because of the overall largess of the bill and its support to wealthy farmers. And, all of agriculture takes a hit when a major newspaper makes the following claim -

“The cost of eating at home has risen more than 5% so far this year, the fastest rate since 1990. Food banks across the country are reporting an increase in demand as the very poor are pushed closer toward starvation. For Congress to take food out of their mouths in order to shovel more money at farmers -- who are enjoying huge profits thanks to the same high food prices that are hurting the poor -- would be a disgrace.” (from the LA Times editorial)