Would it be Congressional Democrats, who'd be continuing their defense of farm bill agribusiness as usual and supporting more big bucks for the farm subsidy lobby?

Or would it be President Bush, who said in the Rose Garden Tuesday:

Americans are concerned about rising food prices. Unfortunately, Congress is considering a massive, bloated farm bill that would do little to solve the problem.

The bill Congress is now considering would fail to eliminate subsidy payments to multimillionaire farmers. America's farm economy is thriving. The value of farmland is skyrocketing. And this is the right time to reform our nation's farm policies by reducing unnecessary subsidies.

It's not the time to ask American families who are already paying more in the checkout line to pay more in subsidies for wealthy farmers.

Congress can reform our farm programs, and should, by passing a fiscally responsible bill that treats our farmers fairly and does not impose new burdens on American taxpayers.

Our money is on Bush. USDA's Chuck Conner as much as said yesterday that the president will veto any bill with the latest (mockery of a travesty of a ) sham income cap "reform" proposed by conferees. Democrats look even more beholden to, not to say craven before, the farm subsidy lobby now than they have up to this point in the farm bill soap opera. Which is saying something.

And no, Democrats would not prevail in the ole marketplace of ideas by arguing that the bill provides more than $10 billion in Food Stamp and nutrition program benefits. Securing those benefits has been EWG's top priority for farm bill spending, too.

But it would be no trouble at all for principled Democrats and Republicans to find money to pay for the nutrition increase (and more) through sensible cuts to direct payments to big, wealthy farms.

And we're willing to bet every editorial page in the country would agree. Politicians can and should cut subsidies to plantation-scale farm operations, increase funds for nutrition and conservation programs, and maintain a solid safety net for farmers, all at the same time.

If you want Talking Point #1 for how reformers win this debate, David Rogers has it at Politico. Here's the top:

Trying to close the books on a new farm bill, Congress and the White House are bumping up against the uncomfortable fact that President Bush twice last year vetoed health care bills for working families who earn far less than most farmers getting subsidies.

Income eligibility was a central issue in those veto fights as Bush opposed a bipartisan effort to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program up the poverty ladder. By contrast, at a time of high commodity prices and food shortages, the government continues to distribute about $5.2 billion in annual direct payments to individuals regardless of personal income or current production on their farmland.

Mindful of the inequities, the White House is proposing to cut off subsidies to anyone with an adjusted gross income — after deductions — of $500,000 or more. House-Senate negotiators have moved toward this goal in the case of non-farmers, but a plan outlined Wednesday doesn’t begin to phase out direct payments to active farmers until their adjusted gross incomes exceed $950,000. Even then, the phaseout is so slow that a producer could have an income of almost $1.95 million before all direct payments would be cut off.

In comparison, last year’s debate over health care for the children of working-class families revolved around much stricter income caps.

When Bush first vetoed an attempt to expand SCHIP in October, he charged Congress with extending coverage to families with incomes as high as $83,000. That claim was hotly disputed by many lawmakers. But the president then proceeded to veto a second bill that set a general cap of 300 percent of poverty.

So will Democrats really get behind a bill that would allow farmers to have a three-year average adjusted gross income of $950,000 and still get full subsidies?

Especially. . .

When Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., was asked how many Iowans would be affected by the new income limits, he smiled and held up a couple of fingers.

“Two or three,” he said, adding, “I don’t agree with this. Compromises are compromises. There will be other times down the road where we can address this."

No, there won't be another time. Not for five years. The time is now.