By the Des Moines Register Editorial Board

Sunday, Nov. 18, 2001

The federal government pumped more than $2.3 billion in crop subsidies into Iowa last year. If that were an industrial payroll, it would be the equivalent of having a company that employs 50,000 workers and pays them more than $46,000 each. Iowa would kill for that kind of payroll. It's huge. And it's here.

That might explain why most members of Congress from Iowa and other farm states fight to defend federal farm programs that have become indefensible. Reforms of farm policy might make good sense, but most of the changes proposed would tend to reduce the number of subsidy dollars flowing into Iowa and the handful of other states that reap the lion's share. So change would be bad for Iowa, right?

Don't be so sure.

Farm programs pour lots of cash into the Iowa economy, but they may work a little like slow poison. Each sip is sweet, but the cumulative effect is debilitating. In any event, it is difficult to imagine America's taxpayers continuing much longer to pour billions into farm subsidies, especially as they come to realize they get virtually nothing in return. None of the traditional justifications for farm subsidies stands up to scrutiny. To guarantee the nation's food supply? Nonsense. Only a few grains and cotton are eligible for subsidies. The majority of food is produced without government subsidy, and the supply keeps flowing just fine. To keep food cheap? No again. Although they don't work well, farm programs are meant to raise the price of farm commodities, not lower them. But the subsidized grains make up such a tiny percentage of the final cost of processed food that they have little impact on what the consumer pays anyway. To save the family farm? What a cruel hoax. Crop subsidies tend to speed the demise of the family farm because the bulk of the payments go to the biggest farmers. That gives them extra cash to buy out the little guys.

There's a natural trend toward bigness, and the crop subsidies accelerate it. To aid in rural economic development? Another hoax. Crop subsidies tend to work against economic development for the same reason they work against small farms. They accelerate rural population decline. Moreover, farmers tend to be locked into producing the "program crops," so the diversification of agriculture that could help rural areas is discouraged.

Rural development depends on fostering non-farm enterprises, yet there is little money for that because most of the budget for rural America is eaten up by crop subsidies.

The taxpayers, and even states like Iowa that are on the receiving end of subsidies, surely can do better. Congress is in the midst of its quinquennial rewrite of farm legislation, so it's time to consider a new bargain between taxpayers and farmers. It should be an arrangement in which taxpayers get more for their money than the knowledge that they're helping wealthy farms get wealthier, and in which rural America gets something of more enduring value than periodic cash infusions.

Since farm commodities are subject to wide swings in prices, and because individual farmers have no control over markets, there is good reason for the government to provide a safety net to help farmers through the down years. But this safety net need not come in the form of subsidizing crops. A better way would be to subsidize good stewardship. Farmers' incomes should be enhanced on the basis of how well they care for the land and the environment, rather than how many bushels of corn or bales of cotton their land is capable of growing. This would cure most of the ills of the current farm programs, and it would give taxpayers a better return on their investment. They'd get cleaner streams and lakes, a more beautiful countryside and knowledge that the nation's precious soil resources would be secure for future generations.

The U.S. House has passed a bill that more or less perpetuates the existing system. In the Senate, the Agriculture Committee is drafting a bill that may contain some new features, but there is heavy pressure to retain the status quo. The best hope for change is the Conservation Security Act, which would become part of the overall farm bill. It would compensate farmers for being good stewards of the land, and it is championed by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, who chairs the Agriculture Committee. The question is whether the conservation features will become the heart of the new farm bill, as Harkin envisioned, or merely an appendage that provides a little conservation money while the bulk of the money still goes for crop subsidies and all their poisonous effects.