Copyright 2002 Times Publishing Company St.
Petersburg Times (Florida)
January 28, 2002, Monday, 0 South Pinellas
Edition
SECTION: EDITORIAL; EDITORIALS; Pg. 8A
LENGTH: 545 words
HEADLINE: Farms bust the bank
BODY: Today's welfare queens are farmers,
showing up in shiny boots and shiny trucks to collect their federal subsidy
checks. At least that is what a reasonable person would conclude after following
the debate (lack of debate, really) over the 2002 Farm
Bill.
Both houses and both parties in Congress want
to lard the direct payments, price supports and low-cost loans to farmers with
billions more, particularly for crops that already produce a wasteful surplus.
Despite a return to deficit spending, both the House and Senate would add more
than $ 73-billion to the existing farm bill, more than half of
which would go for commodity programs.
The politicians
are promoting such generosity under the guise of saving the family farm and
assuring an affordable supply of food. Truth be told, the 2002 Farm Bill actually undermines both efforts.
The bulk of subsidies go not to family farms but to the largest
agribusinesses. For example, in Arkansas' Mississippi Delta region, the
rice capital of America, the top 1 percent of farmers get 26 percent of the
subsidies while the bottom 80 percent get only 9 percent of the money, the New
York Times reported. Paid to overproduce, the farms end up with a surplus of
rice, but that is not a beneficial outcome. Low wholesale prices squeeze the
family farmers out of business, while large federal subsidies help the corporate
farmers buy out their competitors.
Consumers don't
necessarily benefit from overproduction, either. For example, price supports and
import restrictions on sugar actually inflate the cost of refined sugar and
other products by $ 2-billion a year.
The U.S.
Department of Agriculture issued a warning earlier this year in an important
report on food and agriculture policy. "Many of the program approaches since the
1930s proved not to work well or not at all, produced unexpected or unwanted
consequences, became far costlier than expected and have been continually
modified in our long succession of farm laws," the report stated.
Given the adverse effects of such farm policies, why is
Congress so intent on busting the bank for farmers? It has little to do with
farming and a lot to do with congressional politics in an election year. Sen.
Dick Lugar, an Indiana Republican and one of the few sane voices on the issue,
explains it this way: "If either party stands in the way of this largess, they
risk being labeled the "antifarm party' and targeted with sentimental
imagery associated with farm failures."
Sen. Lugar has
proposed a superior alternative to enlarged subsidies, one that would treat all
farmers equally and return the beneficial aspects of free markets to
agriculture. His plan would provide every farmer with federal money for income
insurance. That way, farmers could grow whatever crop they choose and still be
shielded from catastrophic losses in a bad year. Family farmers would be
protected from their greatest adversary - rapacious corporate farms. Such a
program would cost taxpayers much less and make America more competitive with
foreign agriculture.
Few in Congress are listening,
however. They are too busy "protecting" the family farm and American
consumers by handing out billions of dollars to businessmen who never seem to
get their hands dirty.