GUEST EDITORIAL: Crop subsidies should be kept in check

May 08, 2008 05:05 pm

— If there’s a silver lining in today’s higher food prices, it may well be that they have shamed Congress into crafting a more balanced farm bill. Crop subsidies have been cut, funds for food stamps and other nutrition programs have been increased and, not least important, the tax credit for ethanol processors has been lowered. All positive steps, yet more can and should be done.
Reformers — including President Bush — had been seeking a change in the crop subsidy system for some time, but with little to show for their efforts in recent months. That has changed now that farmers are reaping high prices for corn and wheat, driving up prices at the supermarket. Faced with rising consumer complaints, and a fall election, Congress had to react or else risk voter backlash at the polls.
Late last week, congressional negotiators hammered out the major points of a new, five-year farm bill, which would cost some $300 billion and makes an effort to respond to the rising chorus of criticism. For example, crop subsidies would be cut by $400 million over 10 years. That is exceedingly modest, given the nearly $5 billion that the bill would provide in subsidies over five years. And much of that money would go to large corporate farms that are enjoying record harvests.
By contrast, President Bush favors trimming subsidies for all farms that earn $200,000 a year or more. That’s fair. But the measure that Congress is likely to send him this week contains no income limits at all for farmers to receive subsidies. The cuts would be for so-called gentleman farmers, or those who do not earn most of their living off the land. An example is David Rockefeller, who from 1995 to 2005 received $554,000 in government subsidies for a farm he owns in New York.
On the plus side, the new measure would provide $1 billion a year more for food stamps, and reduce a proposed disaster relief program for farmers to $3.8 billion from $5 billion. Critics fear the fund will encourage farmers to plant in environmentally risky areas with the knowledge that if their crops fail, the government will bail them out.
By scaling back the tax credit for corn-based ethanol, to 45 cents a gallon from 51 cents, the new measure would reduce the incentive for farmers to raise corn for fuel rather than food. At the same time, the bill includes financial incentives for ethanol made from switchgrass and other plants.
Yet as welcome as the new priorities on nutrition and ethanol are, the nation cannot afford to continue crop subsidies on the scale Congress envisions. Mr. Bush should say as much by refusing to sign off until the lawmakers agree on a truly responsible measure.
— Albany Times Union