If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: "Come and show me another city with lifted head singing so proud to be alive and coarse and strong and cunning."

The stockyards may be closed, but they still know how to handle a sacred cow in Chi-Town.

Plow this bill under

Farm subsidies shouldn't go to millionaire landowners

It goes against the grain for farm subsidies to be handed out to the rich. But that's precisely what the House version of the next farm bill does -- it continues big handouts to wealthy farmers and landowners. It's going to be up to the Senate to get it right when Congress resumes next month.

Under the current farm bill, which expires this year, subsidies to farmers are cut off if their yearly incomes are above $2.5 million. The $286 billion, five-year House bill lowers that limit to $1 million -- an improvement, but far higher than the $200,000 limit suggested by President Bush and the $250,000 cap contained in a "Fairness Amendment" that was defeated on the House floor. Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn't support tougher reforms because she was trying to protect some first-term farm-state Democrats.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that lowering the limit to $1 million will only cut 3,175 farm owners from the program. And Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, which works to reform farm policy, said the cap will be easy to dodge because the House retained too many loopholes. "A millionaire with an enormous farm, half a brain and a cut-rate accountant will easily avoid" the cap, he said.

The need for change is clear. Just 10 percent of America's farmers claimed 66 percent of the farm subsidies between 2002 and 2005, according to Cook's group. Most payments went to just five crops: wheat, soybeans, cotton, rice and corn. A program started to help small farmers during the Depression did not remain true to its mission. It now favors large agribusinesses, landowners who don't farm and others who don't need any help. Former Chicago Bulls great Scottie Pippen, for instance, received nearly $79,000 in conservation subsidies from 2003 to 2005 for land he owns in Arkansas.

The last hope for the Fairness Amendment is the Senate. Along with the lower cap, that plan would limit subsidies to $250,000 per year. And subsidies would only go to those who actively farm. It also channels more money to conservation, nutrition and other programs. Another proposal co-sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) would change how subsidies are paid out to make sure relief goes to the farmers who most need it.

We need a smarter, fairer farm bill, not one that helps rich people harvest more riches.