Let's grow a little common sense

A sensible federal farm policy would not pay people who don't earn the bulk of their income from farming. A sensible policy would not throw tax dollars at those who do farm, but who are millionaires. A sensible federal farm policy would provide American farmers a safety net when they need it.

But not much on Capitol Hill seems sensible anymore. That's evident as the Senate takes up its version of the Food Energy and Security Act, aka the farm bill. Unfortunately, it lacks the reforms needed to curb nonsensical spending.

Let's first reaffirm that farming remains a noble profession, and nowhere is that more evident than in Illinois, a land made for harvesting. Farmers here double as chemists, engineers, businessmen. Their crops are vital to our food supply and, increasingly, our fuel supply. And for all the attention agriculture gets, the Illinois Farm Bureau points out that over five years, more than half of the proposed $286 billion farm bill goes toward social welfare programs, such as nutrition and food stamps, while the commodity title gets an estimated $35 billion. That means out of every dollar spent, farmers get a little over a dime.

Still, some farmers are on a form of welfare themselves. Their safety net created amid the Depression has grown into a web of entitlements that lets people with $2.5 million in adjusted gross income be eligible for farm program payments; that lets farmers get so-called direct payments of up to $40,000, even if they don't need them; that lets "hobby" farmers, including a Texas oil billionaire, rake in subsidies. According to a Washington Post investigation last summer, since 2000 Uncle Sam has paid at least $1.3 billion in crop subsidies to individuals who don't farm.

Lawmakers have a chance to revolutionize this skewed system with an amendment from Indiana Sen. Dick Lugar, a farmer himself. Called the FRESH Act, Lugar's plan would phase out direct payments for commodity crops and replace them with a free insurance program available to all farmers. It would guarantee growers up to 85 percent of a lost harvest, only when they lose money. Sadly, it may be too fresh an idea for Congress. Lugar's plan, which he says could save $16 billion over five years, appears doomed.

Taxpayers, then, must push for reforms within immediate reach. First, Congress should tighten the means test on payment recipients by cutting the ceiling to $200,000 in adjusted gross income, as President Bush seeks. Lawmakers could go further: $200,000 is an income level reached by just 2 percent of Americans, and about four times Illinois' average AGI.

Second, Congress should cut the $360,000 maximum amount of annual payments - direct, countercyclical, loan deficiency - recipients can collect. North Dakota Sen Byron Dorgan has proposed a $250,000 max. Again, Congress might go lower. It is massive operations that reap the most from direct payouts.

Third, lawmakers should demand that subsidies only go to those who earn the great majority of their income from farming, no exceptions.

Fourth, absent a FRESH Act overhaul, lawmakers should explore alternate safety nets, such as a voluntary, revenue-based proposal from Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin. His plan, backed by the Farm Bureau and National Corn Growers Association, would protect farmers when prices and yields are low. It also would reduce or eliminate existing farm program payments and save a potential $3 billion. It's not perfect, but economists argue that such an approach would be an improvement. Senators should resist the crop insurance industry's attempt to tinker with Durbin's plan.

For too long federal policy has hurt, not helped, the family farmer, and has spawned market-distorting entitlements. In a year when many farmers are enjoying great harvests and higher prices, now's the time to get sensible.