Copyright 2002 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.  
St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
March 23, 2002 Saturday Five Star Lift Edition
SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. 30

LENGTH: 386 words

HEADLINE: CUT THE FAT, SAVE THE FOOD

BODY:
FARM BILL

WHEN House and Senate negotiators meet to iron out differences in the bloated farm bill, they need to trim the pork in the Agriculture Department's $73 billion budget and stop pretending there is no money for worthy nutrition programs -- such as the one that gives the low-income elderly food coupons to redeem at farmers markets.

Both the House and the Senate farm bills continue plenty of unneeded subsidies to large farmers and add new ones. In the House bill, for example, these additional subsidies would cost $49 billion during the decade. Some of these subsidies encourage overplanting, leading to depressed farm prices, which trigger pleas for even more subsidies.

Most lawmakers can't seem to stop throwing good money at bad farm policies, but some are trying to discourage this waste. Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois offered one of the best amendments in the Senate bill. His proposal would forbid the payment of farm subsidies for cropland that has not been planted in one of the five previous years. The measure is expected to save $1.4 billion by discouraging farmers from bringing marginal land into the farm program.

The savings are supposed to be used to restore food stamp benefits to legal immigrants, assuming the provision survives House-Senate negotiations. Another program that needs to be saved and expanded is the one under which 2.6 million low-income elderly people get coupons worth an average of $40 that they can redeem during the summer at farmers markets. The Bush administration killed this program, even though it promotes good nutrition and helps some 14,400 small produce farmers boost their businesses. Imagine what an expanded program of this kind could do for a Soulard.

In an interview with The New York Times, one Agriculture Department official praised the farmers market program, saying "we care for the elderly, but we don't have the money for this." They don't have the money because $20 billion in crop subsidies are weighted in favor of large farmers and faulty farm policies. In the House-Senate conference meeting, other lawmakers should follow Mr. Durbin's lead. Like him, they should review the bills for needless subsidies and eliminate them in order to rescue worthy nutrition programs that feed the needy.

LOAD-DATE: March 23, 2002