Basically a status-quo proposal, with many issues (like payment limits) not addressed. "The nuances of these programs are negotiable," the document states. "This overview is a platform for further discussion."

There is no change in the big ticket item in this farm bill cycle: $26 billion in direct payments, a leftover from "freedom to farm" payment contracts begun in 1996 that will be made, regardless of crop prices, over the next 5 years. Chairman Harkin has repeatedly criticized direct payments as "hard to justify" when crop prices are high, as they are now, and farmers will be making good money (in some cases record money) in the marketplace.

But with this draft he formally endorses continuing those very payments at the same level. He (suddenly) indicated he would do this a few weeks ago, just after Speaker Pelosi's House farm bill did the same.

They're simply accepting the reality that this is what every major farm and commodity group wants. And that's probably the most important take-away from this farm bill cycle.

We've heard the talking point ad nauseam from subsidized farmers over the years, particularly in response to questions from reporters about their government payments: "We don't like relying on the government. We'd prefer to earn our income from the market. We just don't have a choice."

The next time you hear that from a subsidy recipient or the subsidy lobby, know that it's complete and utter hypocrisy.

Every major farm and commodity group has pressed nonstop for continued billions in direct payments from taxpayers in the 2007 bill, even for crops with very strong prices like corn, wheat and soybeans. They want their subsidy handouts permanently, even on top of record earnings, no matter what other needs go begging as a consequence, whether it's conservation, investments in organic farming, rural development, healthier food, you name it.

Wait and see. Next year or the year after, if Congress faces a budget crunch and the agriculture committee has to cut spending, even if crop prices and incomes are in the stratosphere the subsidy lobby will push to make sure any cuts come from conservation, rural development, research, food stamps (if they dare), or other areas they consider superfluous by comparison.

Other points in this document: Counter-cyclical payments would be triggered by revenue (price plus production) instead of price. Crop loans are set at 85 percent of a 5-year Olympic average, but no annual change in the loan could exceed 1 percent. A few changes to the primary crop insurance program, plus a version of "permanent disaster" authority in the form of supplemental, premium- and fee-free crop insurance that would be made available to farmers when a county receives disaster designation.