The Devil in the details of the most recent farm bill is driving me nuts. The Strange Fellow in my Bed is President Bush! Part of me sees some real reform in there encouraging localalism and other things in a way that hasn't been done before. Subsidies are the 800lb gorilla in the room here, but are not the only issue. If you read through the legislation, there's lots of good stuff in there encouraging organics, agribusiness reform, and regulation of school lunches. On one hand I want the President to veto the whole thing so a much better bill can be crafted, but my inner realist thinks we should cut our losses and hope for more progress down the line and live with the bill as it stands for now. Matt's right; money talks. And the system is so messed up that any reform at all is kind of a victory.

Posted by Roboticghost | May 16, 2008 9:32 AM

I imagine the preponderance of U.S. farmers listen to (and actually like) country music. That alone is reason enough to deprive them of any federal or state largesse.

Posted by steve duncan | May 16, 2008 9:35 AM

I think it should also be taken into account that those farmers earning between $200K and $950K have disproportionate influence not just because of their wealth (and of course our Constitutional bias towards farmers), but because this issue impacts them far more directly than everybody else. In fact, we can calculate exactly how much more they care about this - take the total population of US taxpayers, and divide it by the number of farmers in that earnings rage, and that's the factor by which they are more interested in getting these subsidies than anybody else is in blocking them. I don't want these subsidies passed, myself, but ultimately it's going to cost me, what, $10, $20?

Posted by OhioBoy | May 16, 2008 9:37 AM

I would just like to answer Megan's question:

http://www.uwex.edu/ces/ag/wisag/documents/Dane.pdf

Posted by freddiemac | May 16, 2008 9:40 AM

You can’t expect libertarians to start factoring in the political consequences of wealth. Once they start realizing how many current laws are designed to aid the wealthy for little more reason then wealthy people are effective at advancing their own interests, you’re terrifying close to wondering how people got rich in the first place.

Down that path leads to madness, and limited commercial viability as a writer of economic “thoughtâ€

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | May 16, 2008 9:41 AM

I had the exact same thought when I read Megan's post - a lot of rural communities probably exist to serve the needs of (somewhat) affluent farmers, so there's a base-multiplier effect at work (each farmer supports some number of service jobs in the community).

Posted by minderbender | May 16, 2008 9:42 AM

minderbender,

Also remember that wealthy farmers can afford to buy more heavy farm equippment. In the case I linked, those wealthy farmers are not too far from Racine, the home base of Case:

http://www.caseih.com/about/about.aspx?contentid=137&RL=ENAN&navid=

Posted by freddiemac | May 16, 2008 9:52 AM

Sorry, here's a better version of that site:

http://www.casece.com/about/history.asp?RL=NAE

Posted by freddiemac | May 16, 2008 9:55 AM

Indeed, one mistake I think liberals sometimes make is to assume that political disputes about "economic self-interest" will naturally break down as higher-income versus lower-income rather than region versus region or industry versus industry.

I hope you're consciously including yourself when you say "liberals".

Posted by right | May 16, 2008 9:56 AM

To be fair to Bush, the Senate was controlled by the Democrats in 2002 when the prior bill was passed. IIRC, Bush then threatened to veto the more generous Senate bill and the Senate gave way in conference to the slightly less disgusting house bill. That said, it seems clear Bush is more willing to sign deplorable GOP legislation than deplorable Democratic legislation.

Posted by Sam | May 16, 2008 9:58 AM

Its also important to remember that subsidies are a backhand attempt at regulation. Its the current vehicle telling farmers, even rich ones, what to plant. So the issue is somewhat more complicated than it looks. If Apple doesn't make enough iPhones to satisfy demand, oh well. The market will sort that out. Food is a different matter. If farmers don't plant enough of one kind of crop or another the whole system breaks down. I'd love to see a more sensible way of regulating agriculture, but in America today is that practical? Most farmers don't grow food really, they grow parts of food-like stuff. Its a consequence of an industrial food system. It sucks, but it is what it is.

Posted by Roboticghost | May 16, 2008 10:02 AM

This merely gives me the chance to repeat Matt's greatest howler: "Wow, agriculture is important in California? Who knew?"

That's a paraphrase, BTW.

Umm. California is the most productive agricultural region in the history of the world.

The Farm Bill is a legislative Christmas tree. Everybody gets something.

Posted by PDX Pete | May 16, 2008 10:07 AM

Also, don't underestimate the american dream as a rationale for low income farmers to support subsidies for farmers richer than they probably will ever be. The prospect, always possible in america, of becoming a millionaire often prompts people to support policies against their self-interest today but will totally help them in the future when they break through and become millionaires - the republicans have used this possibility to sell their brand of tax cuts and free market economics to people for years and it's been working

Posted by Evan | May 16, 2008 10:11 AM

Perhaps they could compromise and do a graduated rate between 200k and 950k where $199k gets the full subsidy and 951k gets 0% subsidy.

The best compromises tend to make neither party very happy.

Posted by ben | May 16, 2008 10:13 AM

That is not a working farm in your picture, Matt. Most likely, it's a second home for some lawyers or bankers from Boston or New York. If they're getting any farm subsidies, it is (or ought to be) illegal.

By the way, if you want a wonderful book about farming, perhaps a little dated two decades later, read Howard Kohn's The Last Farmer. Especially if you're from Michigan.

Posted by David in NY | May 16, 2008 10:26 AM

In pratice the susidies almost uniformly distort away from actual food needs via vast disparities in subsidies between crops, with most of them going to a relatively small group of overproduced crops that end up in processed foods - corn subsidies ensure it's so overproduced that vast quantities of corn just end up getting turned into HFCS, animal feed, and ethanol.

Yet, despite these preverse incentives, a wide variety of crops outside the big 5 manage to make it to the supermarket in sufficient quantities and at reasonable prices. You can go to the supermarket and buy a wide variety of fruits and vegitables that are less favorable under the subsidy regime to produce than growing corn, wheat, soy, rice, or cotton. Diversity in the food supply persists in spite of the subsidies, not because of them. The claim that the food supply would be threatend on any level by eliminating the current regime of aggricultural subsides is baseless fearmongering.

Posted by MattXIV | May 16, 2008 10:45 AM

The claim that the food supply would be threatend on any level by eliminating the current regime of aggricultural subsides is baseless fearmongering.

I agree to an extent. But most of the food folks actually eat is dependent on the big 5. I'm a vegetarian and subscribe to a local CSA and do my own canning, but I recognize that most people do not. I also live in a city where a diversified market is available. Ironic fact: some of the people with the least access to fresh fruits and vegetables are farmers. They might have a thousand acres of corn and soybeans growing out back, but they don't have the time to maintain a vegetable garden. Nobody around them does either. They're eating Hamburger Helper and Cheese Whiz because that's what makes it to the local store in palatable condition a lot of the time.

I'm not saying the subsidized system is right, sustainable, healthy, or inevitable. I'm just saying its a broken system that can't be fixed overnight.

Posted by Roboticghost | May 16, 2008 11:02 AM

Lobbying certainly has its affect on Democrats, too, but seems to me you're overlooking a third and larger factor. The Democrats traded some of their agenda (food stamps, nutrition banks, and so on) that have nothing to do with this in exchange for Republican votes, and the Republican agenda is basically subsidies for the wealthy all the time.

Posted by John Haber | May 16, 2008 11:14 AM

I take back my comment about that picture not being part of a working farm. It appears to be from a set of flickr pictures of Brookford Farm in New Hampshire, a dairy spread. Not sure why one can't see barn, fields, etc. in the picture, however.

Posted by David in NY | May 16, 2008 11:20 AM

Aberrant? No. Abhorrent? Yes.

Posted by Oracle | May 16, 2008 12:51 PM

Isn't there a farmer democrat senator or congressman who argued that subsidies for farmers are pandering or bad?

Posted by matt | May 16, 2008 1:38 PM

There is also a regional component at play in the Farm Bill. The subsidy and payment limitation question deals with a discrete "one size fits most" limit (adjusted gross income of $200k or $950k), but the costs farmers face depends greatly upon the crop. Cotton and sugar are crops that cost much more to farm than corn and soybeans. Until there is a better subsidy solution that accounts for these big differences, it appears that there is little hope for meaningful farm subsidy reform. The power and influence of wealthy farm operators play a role, but so do political calculations based on a regional level (e.g. Southern cotton and sugar farmers vs. Midwestern corn and soybean farmers) in an election year.

Posted by JCJ | May 16, 2008 3:55 PM

There is also a regional component at play in the Farm Bill. The subsidy and payment limitation question deals with a discrete "one size fits most" limit (adjusted gross income of $200k or $950k), but the costs farmers face depends greatly upon the crop. Cotton and sugar are crops that cost much more to farm than corn and soybeans. Until there is a better subsidy solution that accounts for these big differences, it appears that there is little hope for meaningful farm subsidy reform. The power and influence of wealthy farm operators play a role, but so do political calculations based on a regional level (e.g. Southern cotton and sugar farmers vs. Midwestern corn and soybean farmers) in an election year.

Posted by JCJ | May 16, 2008 3:56 PM

If you follow the link, that is a new england dairy farm. No federal subsdies. Think Senators from fly over states that ought to be combined until there are only about 80 senators.

Posted by psp | May 16, 2008 5:58 PM