Milking the farm bill for far too long


House and Senate conferees are reportedly close to agreement on a five-year farm bill to replace the one that expired Sept. 30, 2012.

According to much conventional wisdom, this is cause for celebration. The gridlock that forced the farm sector to get by with temporary bills for more than a year is “the poster child for the state of dysfunction in Congress and American politics,” as Congress-watcher Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute put it.

Actually, Congress’ willingness to debate ag policy at length is a sign of political health. The farm bill long has been an irrational, subsidy-laden monstrosity. It’s about time somebody challenged the ag lobby’s hammerlock on Capitol Hill.

Why do we even need a farm bill, with its billions in subsidized crop insurance and definitions of “milk marketing orders” and “base acreage”? Is there something about farming, as opposed to other businesses, that makes market economics uniquely inapplicable?

Supposedly the goal is food security: making sure agriculture pays well enough that rural America can always provide affordable commodities to the cities and suburbs where 82 percent of the population lives. Perhaps government intervention was necessary to achieve this during the Great Depression, when the New Deal first federalized farm policy.

But that’s preposterous now. This obesity-plagued nation is ankle-deep in cheap food. In 2012, the average U.S. household devoted just 6.4 percent of its spending to food eaten at home, easily the lowest percentage in the developed world, according to the Agriculture Department (USDA). Yet the average person in the United States consumed 474 calories per day more in 2010 than in 1970.

Meanwhile, the USDA forecasts record farm net income of $131 billion in 2013, spread among many fewer farms than we had in the 1930s. U.S. farms export about a quarter of what they produce in a typical year, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.

The cause of this abundance is simple: U.S. farms produce 262 percent more food than they did in 1950 while using essentially the same quantities of labor, seeds, feed and fertilizer, the Farm Bureau says. In 1950, the average dairy cow produced 5,300 pounds of milk; today, she gives 22,000 pounds.

U.S. agriculture is so productive that even natural disaster doesn’t threaten food supply as much as it once did.

Remember how we absolutely had to pass a farm bill in 2012, to save us from that year’s drought, which was the most extensive in half a century ?

Well, “(i)t is now clear that the impact of the drought on retail food prices will be smaller than initially forecast,” the USDA reports.” The inflationary pressure of the drought has been offset by factors such as decreased exports of many U.S. agricultural products, a stronger U.S. dollar, low energy price inflation, and decreased prices for many commodities not affected by the drought.”

Food-supply alarmism is a staple theme of ag-lobby propaganda. The menace this year is a spike in milk prices — to $8 a gallon! — if there’s no farm bill and the government is forced to buy up the supply, per an obscure 1949 law.

A recent report in Time explains that this is overblown, partly because the agriculture secretary can delay purchases and partly because other relevant costs, such as transportation, won’t be affected.

For the ag lobby, though, the point is to keep people worrying about a price hike instead of questioning the absurd legal quirk that makes one possible in the first place.

Supporters of the farm bill note that both the House and Senate versions would eliminate the egregious subsidy of direct payments that automatically awards growers of certain favored commodities $5 billion a year. That is a real reform.

But both versions would spend much of the savings on new protections for farms that could be “less transparent . . . and less predictable in terms of projecting budget outlays” than the old system, reports agricultural economist Roman Keeney of Purdue University.

This brings us to the one decent argument for the farm bill, which, in fairness to Ornstein, is the one he emphasized: About 80 percent of it is funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for the poor. The legislative twinning of farm subsidies and food aid reflects a decades-old deal across Congress’ partisan and rural-urban divides.

House Republicans wrongly held up the farm bill this year by trying to sharply cut SNAP benefits while preserving farm subsidies.

Sooner or later, though, Congress will have to find a balanced alternative to the old log-rolling link between help for the poor and corporate welfare for agribusiness.

A functional political system would provide the former — without the latter.

Charles Lane is a member of The Washington Post’s editorial board.

© 2013, The Washington Post.

Read more From Our Inbox stories from the Miami Herald

  • Why the KKK is freaking out

    Last week CNN sparked a backlash with its headline, “Can the Klan Rebrand?” The network’s story was a look at the Ku Klux Klan’s efforts to distance itself from its reputation as a violence-inciting hate group in the wake of former Klan Grand Dragon Frazier Glenn Cross, also known as Frazier Glenn Miller, being charged in a shooting spree that left three people dead at two Jewish facilities in Kansas.

  • Kochs brothers’ attacks on solar power could hurt GOP

    The Republican Party’s biggest sugar daddies, the Koch brothers, are a mixed bag for the GOP: They bring money but lots of baggage. Their downside isn’t only that they are a convenient foil for Democratic turnout but also that they could exacerbate tensions within the Republican Party.

  • Great ideas for changing the Constitution

    Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, a Gerald Ford appointee who retired in 2010 after almost 35 years on the bench, has released a new book that no doubt will infuriate right wingers, irritate Republican leaders in Congress and pull the covers off the conservative majority on the nation’s highest court.

Miami Herald

Join the

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category