Story originally printed in the La Crosse Tribune or online at www.lacrossetribune.com
Published - Monday, May 19, 2008
Kind is right to continue farm-policy reform fight
It’s interesting to note that supporters and critics of the recently passed federal farm bill come from both political parties and all ideologies.
There are plenty of conservatives and liberals in favor of it. And there are critics — not the least of whom is President Bush, who plans to veto it because he believes its subsidies are too high in a time of record grain prices.
Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., also is a critic — and he is joined by a bipartisan group that includes Reps. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Paul Ryan of Janesville, R-Wis.
Kind and Flake have been fighting against the status quo for a while. They argue, correctly, we believe, that the subsidies for specific crops make no distinction between those who need it and those who don’t. And, in any event, there are plenty of multimillionaires who receive huge subsidy checks.
The farm bill is an incredibly complex document. In addition to money that goes to help farmers, it also includes food stamps and other assistance for the poor. And it includes other positive things — incentives to preserve land, help for organic farmers and other pollution-control programs.
But its major failing is not reforming a wasteful and counter-productive farm subsidy program.
According to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank, the five crops that receive the most money in subsidies have all had triple-digit price increases since 2002, when the last farm bill was enacted.
Brian Riedl, a scholar at Heritage who is an expert in federal budget issues, noted the futility of the farm subsidy system.
“Farm subsidies will continue costing taxpayers at least $25 billion annually,” he wrote in a column distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Informa-tion Services. “And for what purpose? Subsidies don’t solve farmer poverty because they go to large, profitable agribusinesses. They don’t preserve family farms because agribusinesses use their large subsidies to buy them out. They are no longer designed to stabilize crop prices. ... Instead, they cost billions in taxes and higher supermarket prices. They harm the environment by encouraging over-planting.”
Yet they are beloved in Congress because so many powerful special interests get rewarded.
The bill passed by a margin in both houses that is substantial enough to sustain a veto. But Bush is right to veto it. And Kind is right to fight against it.
All stories copyright 2000 - 2006 La Crosse Tribune and other attributed sources.