Editorial: Farm bill borrows from Soviet ideals

Remember the Soviet Union’s “five-year plans,” which we Westerners ridiculed as representing the worst sort of top-down, command-and-control economic planning? We have something similar in the United States. It’s called a farm bill.

Despite a veto threat from President Bush, the House of Representatives on Friday approved a five-year, $286 billion farm bill of which Soviet planners would be proud. Texas’ Democrats, including the Rio Grande Valley’s delegation, all voted for the bill; the state’s Republicans all voted against it.

Enough Republicans opposed it that a veto can’t be overridden, which we hope will make senators take a more fiscally responsible tack.

Despite a lot of talk about the need to wean farmers from dependence on federal handouts, the measure maintains current subsidy levels to growers of corn, wheat, barley, oats, cotton, sugar, etc., but for the first time extends subsidies to so-called specialty crops, including fruits, nuts and vegetables. Although specialty crop farmers get only $1.6 billion initially, one can expect that number to climb over time. Corn prices are at near-record highs, largely because of government ethanol mandates, yet Congress couldn’t even muster the will to cut off corn growers, despite the windfall they’re reaping.

The Department of Agriculture continues to drift far from its down-on-the-farm roots, as this bill shows. Roughly 12 percent of the money goes to farm subsidies. But more than 62 percent will be spent on food stamps and nutritional programs.

Another 12 percent goes to rural development (including an initiative to expand broadband in the farm belt) and energy-related matters — it requires taxpayers to further underwrite the biofuels industry, for instance, despite mounting concerns about the environmental and economic impact this manipulation of energy markets will have. The rest, roughly 9 percent, pays farmers not to farm — to leave their fields fallow in the name of “conservation” or wetlands protection.

This is as much an environmental protection bill and energy bill as a “farm” bill — which has us thinking: Why not just do away with the Agriculture Department and hand off these functions to the Energy Department, Health and Human Services or the Environmental Protection Agency?

The special interests that stand to benefit most — including the Renewable Fuels Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Farmers Union, National Corn Growers Association, American Soybean Association, National Pork Producers Council and National Association of Wheat Growers — all give the bill rave reviews. Farm-state legislators mostly complained that the handouts aren’t generous enough.

And what of the people who have to pay for all this? Forgotten as usual. In true Soviet style, the bill even gets into a little redistribution of wealth, by slapping $7.8 billion in new taxes on foreign companies operating in the United States. The proceeds will help pay for a boost in food stamp spending.

The hikes weren’t in the bill approved by the House Agriculture Committee, but were hurriedly tacked on by the Rules Committee before the bill hit the floor. The tactic angered Republicans who might otherwise have supported it, such as Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, who accused Democrats of “hijacking” the bill by slip-ping in a “stealthy new tax.” It’s too bad this “conserva-tive” Republican isn’t as offended by all the handouts.

The only modest concession Congress made to taxpayers was a provision that cuts off subsidies to farmers making more than $1 million a year in income. And, oh yes, Congress has asked the Agriculture Department to explain why it sent $1.1 billion in farm payments to more than 170,000 dead people over a seven-year period. But that’s where “reform” ends.

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns reiterated the administration’s opposition to some elements of the bill, including the tax increase and the refusal to reduce subsidies. “I urge the Senate to chart a different course,” he said.

We also hope for a dramatically different approach when the Senate takes up its bill. But don’t bet the farm on it.