|
The
Washington
Post
This Is Not Reform
Will the Democrats
keep wasting money on farm subsidies?
EDITORIAL,
washingtonpost.com from the Web, July 31, 2007
Washington, July 24 -- WHEN
THE Democrats took over Congress in November, they promised to legislate
differently from their predecessors. Given the slimness of their victory
and the voters' pronounced anger at Washington, they had a mandate to dispense
with the worst manifestations of craven interest politics and to push for basic
reforms in ethics and procedure. Now Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and the
rest of the new House leadership are in danger of failing a major test of their
commitment to change.
At issue is the massive system of farm subsidies -- federal giveaways that cost
all Americans but benefit few -- that is set for reapproval on the House floor
later this week. Currently, half of the cash the country pours into
farming goes to only about 20 congressional districts. According to the
Agriculture Department, in 2004 a third of agricultural payouts went to "very
large" operations that boasted average annual incomes above a quarter of a
million dollars. These subsidies have helped push rural land prices up and
small family farmers out of the market. Other farm payments have been even
more misdirected: A Post investigation found that the government gave $1.3
billion between 2000 and 2006 to landowners who did not farm at all. The
billions spent on subsidies could be used for any number of other priorities,
agricultural or otherwise -- food stamps, conservation programs or debt
reduction, for example.
The system also has eroded America's influence abroad. The vital Doha
round of trade talks continues to sink in part because of disagreement over
American and European agricultural payments. In short, farm subsidies are
a disgrace that any reform-minded politician, particularly any reform-minded
politician with a big D next to her or his name, should be eager to address.
Instead, the House Agriculture Committee has produced a bill that essentially
maintains current subsidy programs, with some minor tweaks billed as "reforms."
Among them is a provision that would disqualify a farmer with an annual adjusted
gross income of $1 million -- yes, $1 million -- from receiving subsidies.
That's a pathetic five times the $200,000 cap President Bush proposed earlier
this year. The bill also includes a small sop to fruit and vegetable
farmers not covered under current commodity programs -- a move that could
generate more support for the bill on the floor than it deserves. And it
increases price targets for some commodity crops, worsening a wasteful federal
liability.
So what is the speaker's take on this rotten bill? It "represents a
critical first step toward reform," Ms. Pelosi said last week. That's the
wrong answer. The House leadership should be pushing for significant
reform of the crop subsidy system. It can start by supporting an amendment
from Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) that would lower the income cap and scale back some
of the most egregious payouts. Mr. Kind's amendment is still too modest,
but proposals like it, not the legislation on the table right now, are the
critical first steps toward reform.
|
