Copyright 2001 The Tribune Co. Publishes The Tampa Tribune Tampa Tribune (Florida)
December 24, 2001, Monday, FINAL EDITION
SECTION: NATION/WORLD, Pg. 8
LENGTH: 844 words
HEADLINE: Must
Farm Laws Aid The Rich While Penalizing Consumers?
BODY: Debating the farm bill was
like riding a seesaw. One day the Democrats were up; the next day they were
down.
In one morning Republicans managed to prevent the
Democrats from limiting debate and pushing the bill toward a vote, and that
evening the Democrats paid them back by deflecting a Republican alternative.
Then Wednesday, for the third time in as many weeks,
Democrats were unable to muster the 60 votes needed to cut off debate,
effectively ending any hope to pass legislation this year.
What this proves is that the farm bill was not ready
for passage, no matter the claims of farm belt senators.
Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin's Democratic proposal raised subsidies to farmers
to intolerable levels that would have cost Americans in taxes and higher food
prices.
But the Republican proposal didn't go far
enough in encouraging conservation. Lawmakers were right to slow down.
Harkin's "reform" package, while it has some positive
points in encouraging conservation, essentially continues failed policies that
benefit not family farms, but corporate giants. But it would hook taxpayers for
nearly $200 billion to subsidize agriculture over the next 10 years. That's not
reform or even a bailout, but a cynical bow to the powerful farm lobby.
The debate has taken the same form it has since the Great
Depression 70 years ago: Lawmakers say they are acting to protect the family
farm and all it represents. But it's not the Norman Rockwell vision of rural
America that is being taken care of. The huge corporate-owned farms that control
millions of acres of corn, cotton, wheat and a few other basic crops, together
with wealthy landowners like Ted Turner and Scottie Pippen, are the
beneficiaries of government subsidies.
That's not the
way it is supposed to be.
Federal Policies
And Planting Decisions
In 1996 Congress passed the
Freedom to Farm Act, contemplating a change in the decades-long dependence of
farmers on government subsidies. Lawmakers knew then that these Depression-era
policies had led farmers to make planting decisions based on government policy
rather than market demand. They knew that many of the beneficiaries of
taxpayers' largess were part-time farmers with significant outside incomes.
Thus the Freedom to Farm Act was a failure. Subsidies that
were set at $6 billion and scheduled to be phased out were instead supplemented
by Congress when commodity prices plunged below the low-price subsidies
established in the law.
Spending on farm programs has
tripled since 1996, and critics of the proposed legislation predict the cost to
taxpayers will be even greater in years to come.
But
preservation remains the major theme of lawmakers pushing the bills on both
sides of the aisle. In October, House Republicans, worried both about the rural
vote and retaining control during midterm elections, bucked President Bush and
passed their version of farm reform - the Farm Security Act.
The president, so popular among farm state voters, nevertheless urged
them to wait. Because the Freedom to Farm law does not run out for another year,
Bush argued, lawmakers should give more consideration to reform. The
congressional proposals, he said, would encourage overproduction and perpetuate
low commodity prices and compromise the nation's efforts to open new markets.
Moreover, the increase in subsidy payments to farmers
could put the U.S. in violation of World Trade Organization rules and so weaken
the country's credibility when it demands Europe cut its farm subsidies.
Indeed, the reaction of the European Union to the farm
debate lends support to the president. The EU has been subdued in its response,
for "as the world's largest provider of agricultural subsidies - at least for
the moment - the EU has the most to gain from a bill that will do much to erase
any U.S. claims to free-market virtue," said Edward Alden of London Financial
Times.
The House bill, which passed narrowly, would
increase the 10-year cost of agriculture policy to $190 billion in taxes.
Moreover, the cost in higher food prices would top $261 billion, which would
gouge the average household $4,377 over the decade, said Brian Riedl of the
Heritage Foundation.
The Senate's bill, Reidel
predicts, would be even costlier because of massive dairy price supports.
The Senate rejected a plan of real substance when it
turned away Indiana Republican Sen. Richard Lugar's proposal to base commodity
support programs on need rather than the size of the farm or ranch. Lugar's bill
would also have increased spending on environmental and nutrition programs.
What is clear in this debate is that farm belt senators
and farm groups fear there will be less money for their subsidies next year.
Harkin accused Republicans of stalling and so putting at
risk the money - a charge the Republicans deny.
But the
Republicans were right to try to delay a bad bill. In light of the recession and
war on terrorism, it is doubtful the country can afford the profligate spending
encouraged by the farm bills.
Document 14 of 420. 