By Tom Schatz, President, The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

and Pete Sepp, Vice-President, National Taxpayers Union

Triticale, camelina, and pulse crops, oh my! What’s a taxpayer to do?

Brashly thumbing its nose at every reform proposal, newspaper editorial, and economic rationale supporting saner agriculture policies, the Senate Agriculture Committee on October 25 approved its version of the Farm Bill.  The legislation not only increases existing subsidies for many crops, but adds new ones to the list, like triticale (a livestock feed), camelina (a new source of cooking oil), pulse crops (lentils and peas), and a favorite of kids across the world, asparagus.

With record high farm profits in America, there is no better time to reform agricultural subsidies. Corn, wheat, and other commodity prices are skyrocketing due to rising demand from China and overseas markets and rising demand for subsidized ethanol here at home. The result is that average farm income is more than $80,000 per year. Reforms would make crops less expensive, less damaging to poor developing nations overseas, and less costly for taxpayers.

Even though this argument has largely fallen on deaf ears in the Senate Agriculture Committee, there seems to be a glimmer of hope with Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) or the even more reform-minded past chairman, Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.). They, along with farm state leaders, are showing an active interest in debating more reforms on the Senate floor, possibly as early as next week. Sen. Harkin floated the idea of a $4.5 billion cut to direct payment subsidies. Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) are circulating a proposal similar to one they offered in 2002 to cap the total subsidies any individual can receive at $250,000 per person per year.  Better still, Sens. Lugar, Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), and six cosponsors have a proposal called the “Farm, Ranch, Energy, Stewardship and Health (FRESH) Act of 2007” to retool the entire commodity title to make it fair to more farmers and less expensive to taxpayers.  Such a package could have wide appeal when it is introduced on the Senate floor.

The chance that these initiatives could attract the 51 votes needed in the Senate to pass improves dramatically if supporters are able to disregard protests from biased voices – like those from entrenched agribusiness interest groups. Their leaders almost uniformly receive bountiful subsidies from the current system and seem unwilling to focus on what would be most beneficial to their member farmers as a whole. Since only seven states get 50 percent of the benefits from today’s lopsided subsidy system, even busy senators from one of the other 43 states should be able to do the math to figure out how much less their farmers receive.

However, the prospects for success on the Senate floor depend entirely on the willingness of congressional leaders to resist what has historically been political herd mentality in federal agriculture policy and be, well, leaders. It’s time for Senators to stop following the tired “yellow brick road” of farm subsidies and chart a new course.  Federal farm policy should be grounded in the real world, not the land of Oz.