Farm Subsidies Ripe For Cutting

The pressure to end federal farm subsidies, an underpinning of this region’s economy, will only grow more intense. If the subsidies are going to end, there may never be a better environment, or a fairer plan, than there is right now.

Surprising a nation that has seen only paralysis from Congress and the president, a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate has voted for a historic change in farm policy. The House, which supports the new approach, should go along rather than demanding even more radical changes that could cause this important legislation to collapse. And President Clinton, if he knows what’s good for the economy and the federal budget, ought to sign the new approach into law.

True, the Senate’s subsidy phase-out would be risky. For 50 years, the economics of agriculture have formed around government aid. Federal supports keep farms and their suppliers afloat when world prices get dangerously low for bulk commodities such as Eastern Washington’s soft white wheat.

But staying with the status quo could be riskier. Congress increasingly is dominated by urbanites who care more about parole officers than extension agents. If Congress isn’t cutting farm supports to fund urban priorities, it’s cutting farm supports to balance the budget. And when it comes to protecting (seizing) wetlands and banning (essential) chemicals, Americans get their information, alas, from the TV anchordroids of New York City.

Meanwhile, as farm support crumbles, the viability of bulk commodities in the global market is weakening as well. Key grain buyers are getting more finicky. Smarter farmers have been exploring overseas demand for premium-quality, specialty grains. But agriculture’s distribution and research infrastructure needs money to develop these opportunities.

By a stroke of good fortune, commodity prices are high right now. Farmers are looking at healthy incomes, for a change. The farm bill passed by the Senate would add to this temporary good fortune, positioning farmers with a steady stream of federal cash that they could invest for new crops, new market niches, and specialized systems for testing, storing and shipping grain.

Instead of volatile price subsidies, the Senate bill offers predictable grants that would taper off over seven years. It also reduces restraints on what, where and how much farmers can plant.

In short, farms could start growing for the actual market rather than for federal rules. And, they’d have a final burst of federal money to prepare themselves for self-sufficiency in global competition. Federal aid seems destined to wither, anyway. The Senate’s bill offers this crucial industry a fighting chance at keeping trade balanced and the world fed.

, DataTimes The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = John Webster/For the editorial board