Congress must soon decide on the details of a $3 billion cut in agricultural spending across the next five years. In the kind of selflessness that normally characterizes special-interest lobbying, powerful farm-commodity lobbyists are urging that farmers be protected and that the brunt of the pain be born by the neediest citizens, who struggle to get by on food stamps.
Government studies show that the food stamp program is one of the most vital and tightly run federal services, affording an average subsidy of $1 per meal to the poor. In contrast, the bloated and skewed farm-subsidy program benefits corporate agriculture at the expense of small farmers and is skimpily policed - overpayments of tens of thousands of dollars are common.
The path of fairness could not be clearer. Deep trims in food stamps were enacted by Congress when welfare was reformed in 1996, and two-thirds of them remain in effect, according to a study by the independent Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Nothing similar has happened to farm subsidies. Vows to rein them in proved hollow as Congress approved more than $20 billion in "emergency" enrichments across the same period.
For once, a Congress that has so unapologetically favored upper-bracket Americans with tax cuts can show a modicum of concern for the poor. Lawmakers should follow the formula for sharing the pain proposed by President Bush in his initial budget: that no more than 7 percent of the agricultural cuts come from food stamps.
This would still mean a regrettable cut of $200 million over five years. But in return, it should at least force closer scrutiny of the farm-commodity windfalls.New York Times
