And not the kids' table, either.

Reporters Les Blumenthal (The Bellingham Herald) and Anna King (The Tri-City Herald/The Bellingham Herald) deftly capture the revolt of fruit and vegetable growers in Washington State who have decided to stop being farm bill losers ("Farm bill debate grows: Competing interests fight for precious dollars in Congress").

Washington state ranks behind only California and Florida when it comes to the production of fruits and vegetables, so-called specialty crops that include everything from apples and potatoes to hops, sweet cherries and wine grapes. Specialty-crop growers have never received direct federal subsidies and little in the way of research, market promotion or other federal assistance.

Of course, bridging this divide means unwanted pressure on official agriculture and political leaders. They prefer no hard choices. Blumenthal and King again:

Valoria Loveland, director of the Washington state Department of Agriculture, is well aware of the rift between the state’s subsidized farmers and specialty crop growers. But Loveland says she doesn’t want money yanked from wheat and corn growers to increase funding for fruit and vegetable farmers.

“Why would I trade off my Palouse wheat farmers for my apple orchards?” Loveland said. “They all need support and understanding to stay on the farm.”

One possible rationale for a trade off might be that Palouse wheat farmers have received subsidies for several generations, whereas the rest of the state's producers have gotten zip. But it doesn't sound as if the state's director of agriculture is going to do anything to right the imbalance. Avoiding the issue would seem to be easier.

Which raises the question: is assistance for subsidy crops required in perpetuity? Are they entitled to almost every dollar of taxpayer support as an income subsidy, forever, at the expense of modest aid (not income subsidies) to farmers producing other crops who may want conservation assistance to deal with environmental issues, or a boost in research funding and marketing assistance to deal with an increasingly competitive global market?

Those are the questions, but the only thing that's certain is that fruit and vegetable growers in Washington state and elsewhere will continue to be farm bill losers unless they insist on a different outcome. Politicians will say "we tried", fruit and vegetable growers will get a few more bucks for their priorities, and subsidy crops will come away--again--with all the money.

One thing's for sure. Washington State's "specialty crop" farmers won't get what they want out of this farm bill if they don't do what subsidy crop farmers have always done: insist that their political leaders listen--and act--even if it does force trade-offs.