It all started way back when the nation was in the depths of depression. But like any government giveaway once started it never goes away.

With commodity prices at record highs now would be a nice time to wean the millionaires off the public teat from what has really become a public scandal.

Feeding at the trough
Reformers still lack the votes to end subsidies for mega-farms

Senators left Washington to adjourn for the year bearing a gift for every U.S. consumer.

Unfortunately, it was a lump of coal: the Farm Bill.

Congress had an opportunity to wean large commercial farming operations from taxpayer subsidies, and treat agricultural entities as businesses, rather than recipients of corporate welfare.

It didn't. The House and Senate versions of the Farm Bill must still be reconciled in a conference committee. Yet neither version signals a major departure from the dysfunctional status quo. So unless President Bush vetoes the final legislation, it's possible that farm programs will continue to produce abundant cash harvests for the well-to-do, and higher food prices for American consumers.

To be sure, roughly two-thirds of the Farm Bill's spending covers food stamps and other nutrition programs. But the Senate had several opportunities to truly limit subsidy programs and it balked.

It could have phased out direct payments to farm operations altogether, as an amendment by Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., would have done.

Lugar points out that over the past decade, 70 percent of all farm subsidies - totaling $120 billion - have gone to 6 percent of farms. Lugar's amendment would have ended those payments - which flow to farmers even if they're earning profits on their operations - by 2014. It would have also set up a true crop insurance program: Farmers would receive payments only when yields or revenues fell by 15 percent in an entire county.

A system like this would minimize taxpayer costs and, over time, sunset the Depression-era subsidy programs. It got only 37 votes, including the support of Colorado Republican Wayne Allard.

Even more modest reforms didn't fare much better. Senators could have set caps on payments; once individual farms reached those limits, they could no longer collect financial support from taxpayers. An amendment, by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., would have capped yearly payments at $250,000 per married couple.

It passed, 56-43. The four Democratic senators running for president returned to Washington to vote for it. Even Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who's rarely met a farm subsidy he couldn't embrace, supported the amendment.

But Democratic leaders insisted that any amendment receive 60 votes, so even a majority of senators were unable to dislodge wealthy subsidy recipients from the taxpayer trough.

What the Senate passed makes a mockery of reform, and by some measures is worse than its House counterpart. The Senate version would by 2010 cut off agricultural payments to absentee owners and others who get more than a third of their income from non-farm sources if their adjusted gross income exceeds $750,000.

But if you're a full-time farmer, the Senate doesn't care how much you earn - you can collect subsidies even if you rake in millions annually. At least the House version would immediately end payments for "real" farmers who earn $1 million or more a year.

The Senate bill is a sham. And since the House bill isn't much better, President Bush should veto whatever eventually reaches his desk.

The support Dorgan's amendment received, however, shows there is a constituency for reform in Washington that the subsidy-addicted farm lobby should no longer be allowed to silence.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/dec/26/feeding-at-the-trough/