Tim, maybe there will be some reconsideration of farm subsidies. This editorial is from today's Post.
Rethink the Farms
Monday, October 1, 2001; Page A20
THE BUSH administration recently released a report on the nation's farm programs that said some bracing things. Lavish subsidies cause "unintended [and unwanted] consequences," by stimulating excess production and driving up land rents. They do not bring much relief to poor farmers, because most of the money goes to big farmers. They do not help the environment. They do little to promote food safety. Having issued this honest assessment, the administration now should campaign against the farm bill that the House is set to vote on this week.
The bill before the House would replace the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act, which is due to expire next year. The bill contains an extraordinary $171 billion in agriculture subsidies over 10 years and an equally extraordinary lack of ideas on avoiding the futility outlined in the administration's recent study. The nation's long-term budget, already battered by the Bush administration's 10-year tax cut, is now about to be weakened again by a stimulus package to help the terror-struck economy. The stimulus is needed, but Congress can ill afford wasteful long-term spending plans that will add to the difficulty of financing the baby boomers' retirement.
In an ideal world, the farm bill would be thrown out, and a cheaper one that focused on environmental protection, food safety and poverty reduction would replace it. In a semi-ideal world, one could at least count upon the administration to stand by its study and threaten a veto; and one could look to the Senate, where farm views are more enlightened, to fix the egregious House bill. Unfortunately, the farm lobby is powerful. The administration may push the House to reduce the money in its legislation, but its appetite for a fight is suspect. Leading senators have denounced the House bill, but nobody wants to risk farm votes or campaign contributions from agribusiness by attacking subsidies too hard.
The best hope for farm policy may be an amendment to the House bill. This would shift $1.9 billion a year away from traditional subsidies and into useful environmental conservation. The chairman of the House agriculture committee, Larry Combest (R-Tex.), opposes the amendment and says he will pull the entire legislation if the amendment passes. That is all the more reason to hope that it will pass.
© 2001 The Washington Post Company
washingtonpost.com |
