Green farm blues

The Baltimore Sun

America's farm safety net is spending billions to subsidize agribusinesses whose profits are soaring, whose prices undercut small-plot farmers in this country and abroad, and whose crops contribute to obesity and water pollution.

Yet a promising drive to shift subsidies away from the largest and more profitable grain and cotton farms to smaller fruit and vegetable outlets, as well as to conservation programs to help farmers keep fertilizer out of the Chesapeake Bay, is faltering badly.

Congress is great at giving, not so good at taking away - especially from the farm lobby that holds so much clout among lawmakers from Southern and Midwestern states.

But leaders should avoid the temptation to relax pay-as-you-go requirements in order to put enough money in the pot so that everyone but the taxpayer comes out ahead. The time is long overdue for reform of crop subsidies, and the opportunity should not be abandoned without a fight.

President Bush, legislators from both parties and an unusual coalition of environmentalists, humanitarian organizations and taxpayer watchdog groups are pushing for a rewrite of the farm bill that would trim traditional crop subsidies and divert the funds to other purposes, such as food stamps and land conservation.

As the House Agriculture Committee began work on the measure last month, though, the subcommittee that deals directly with subsidies voted 18-to-0 to maintain the status quo. Not surprisingly, the lawmakers involved hail predominantly from the districts to which much of the subsidy money flows.

Rep. Collin C. Peterson, a Minnesota Democrat who chairs the full Agriculture Committee, is expected to shortly unveil two proposals. One makes modest cuts in crop subsidies and transfers the savings to fruit and vegetable growers and more environmentally sensitive agriculture programs. A second measure calls for beefing up nutrition and conservation programs, but so far it doesn't have a source of funds.

The bay money, proposed at $200 million a year for the six-state watershed, may depend on a deep cut in crop subsidies. But that's not the best reason to cut them.

These outdated handouts are going to farmers who don't need them, at the expense of those who could use some help. Mr. Bush's proposal to reserve subsidy payments for farmers earning less than $200,000 a year instead of millionaires and absentee landlords would work to the advantage of the family farmer, who is the purported target of such aid. Environmental damage caused by crops requiring lots of fertilizer, and health damage caused by making corn syrup and starch much cheaper than fruits and vegetables, strengthen the case.

Hard as it is, Congress should put that subsidy money to better use.

Copyright © 2021, The Baltimore Sun, a Baltimore Sun Media Group publication | Place an Ad
72°