Philadelphia Inquirer
Aug. 18, 2007

Food for thought
Bread for the World, an anti-hunger group, isn't often on the same side of an issue as the pro-globalization, conservative think-tank Heritage Foundation.

Toss Oxfam, Environmental Defense, and Taxpayers for Commonsense into the mix, and you've got one of the more diverse coalitions you'll see these days in Washington.

Too bad the House of Representatives wasn't paying attention when the farm bill came up for a vote last month.

A wide range of lobbyists has been working the Hill to persuade Congress to modernize U.S. farm subsidies, which disproportionately aid five crops in less than 30 congressional districts. More than half of all payouts go to large commercial entities, not the fabled "family" farmer the program was intended to help.

Since 1995, the nonprofit Environmental Working Group (www.ewg.org/farm/) has been poring over subsidies by zip code to determine who gets what. It's hard to ignore the wild inequities.

What was intended as a safety net for the nation's breadbasket has turned into welfare for some of the richest agricultural producers. That needs to change.

Still, Congress is reluctant to reform the system, which dates, in part, to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Ignoring a solid proposal to overhaul crop support from Reps. Ron Kind (D., Wis.) and Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.), the House chose merely to cap the income of current subsidy recipients - at an astonishing $1 million. This would exclude only 7,000 recipients. (The White House supports a $200,000 cap.)

The House did sweeten the pot for conservation, renewable energy, nutrition and specialty crops - all good steps, which confronted reform-minded lobbyists with a tough choice. Should they settle for these modest gains, or keep pushing for systemic change against long odds?

They should keep pushing. The Senate can and must do better than a $286 billion bill that "promotes protectionism, overproduction and market interference," as Taxpayers for Commonsense says.

The House bill still sends half of all farm money to about 20 congressional districts; stymies thousands of farmers wanting to protect land, water and wildlife habitat; and shortchanges fruit and vegetable growers. The massive subsidies leave the United States vulnerable to accusations at world trade talks of market manipulation.

The White House isn't happy, either. Under a presidential veto threat, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns urges the Senate to "take another course," when debate begins next month.

Beyond subsidy reform, the Senate should increase domestic hunger assistance, promote healthful school lunches, boost rural prosperity, and encourage sustainable farming.

A wide coalition supports change. The Senate needs only the courage to lead.