You are currently viewing the printable version of this article, to return to the normal page, please click here.
The Washington Times Online Edition

Pelosi’s farm boondoggle

Question of the Day

Who do you think, among the GOP presidential candidates, will raise the most funds?

View results

Amid the most prosperous farm economy in decades, as crop prices and farm incomes approach or exceed record levels, President Bush this year requested Congress to limit taxpayer-financed agriculture subsidies to farmers whose annual adjusted gross income was less than $200,000. In a mockery of reform in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Democrat-controlled chamber, the House Agriculture Committee has produced a farm-policy reauthorization bill that would dole out subsidies over the next five years to farmers with annual incomes as high as $1 million.

That's not all. The bill would also increase by 50 percent the annual maximum direct payment to qualifying farmers from $40,000 to $60,000. This, mind you, is in a country where the median household income in 2005 was $46,376, which is 3 percent below its 1999 inflation-adjusted level. The direct payment would double if the farmer's wife also tilled the soil. That brings it to $120,000, more than two-and-a-half times median household income. The bill would also remove the $75,000 cap for "marketing loan payments."

Overall, the big winners would continue to be the five major commodity programs — cotton, rice, wheat, corn and soybeans, whose farmers pocketed about $17 billion of the $19 billion in 2006 subsidies. Today, fewer than 10 percent of the nation's farms collect nearly 60 percent of the subsidy payments, while nearly 60 percent of farmers receive nothing. This will not change over the next five years if the House approves this travesty of a bill, which it will consider this week.

To ensure Mrs. Pelosi's embrace of its flawed bill, the House Agriculture Committee approved $1.8 billion in new payments over the next five years for the fruit and vegetable industry. Particularly galling is the continuation of the direct payments, which were introduced in 1996 under the revolutionary free-market-oriented Freedom to Farm Act. To wean the major-commodity farmers off the welfare dole to which they had become addicted since the New Deal era, the 1996 bill sought to replace traditional farm subsidies with a system of fixed, declining annual direct payments. These "transition payments" would cease after seven years.

However, "emergency" supplemental appropriations during the late 1990s routinely raised the welfare payments to farmers. The 2002 farm reauthorization bill reinstated the traditional subsidies and also renewed the direct payments, which had been established in 1996 to wean farmers from their subsidies. In this era of "Democratic reform," the new bill would retain both forms of welfare.

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
You Might Also Like
  • Antonya Huntenburg, 21, of Hillsborough, N.J., a student at the Corcoran College of Art and Design, says everyone she knows is under some kind of economic pressure, including her parents. She says she joined the Occupy D.C. encampment on McPherson Square "to be safe." (Rod Lamkey Jr./The Washington Times)

    Youths show economic frustration in streets around the world

    By Patrice Hill - The Washington Times

  • **FILE** Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan attends the OutServe Armed Forces Leadership Summit on Oct. 15, 2011, in Las Vegas. (Associated Press)

    Military gay group growing, aiming for more rights

    By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times

  • ** FILE ** The Rev. William E. Lori, Roman Catholic bishop of Bridgeport, Conn., gestures while testifying on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 16, 2012, before the House Oversight and Government Reform committee hearing: "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion & Freedom of Conscience." From left are, Lori, the Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison, president of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, and C. Ben Mitchell, professor of Moral Philosophy Union University. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

    Battle lines are drawn over whether Obama is waging a war on religion

    By Cheryl Wetzstein - The Washington Times

  • Happening Now

          Independent voices from the TWT Communities

          Legally Speaking

          Despite cynicism about the law, it can provide you justice, protection, and ensure your rights. It can be exasperating, and at times, wildly entertaining.

          Sportfolio

          Exploring the world of adventure sports—where “adventure” is sometimes only a state of mind.

          Political Potpourri

          A collection of reader guest articles, thoughts and opinions by Communities writers and breaking news and information.