To the Editor:

In a showing of bi-partianship, the United States federal legislature has abandoned the principle of fiscal discipline for which our new Democratic majority was elected. The recently passed farm subsidies bill was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost $307 billion, leading President Bush to veto the measure, before being swiftly overridden by both houses. It utilizes 66% of those appropriations for programs unrelated to farm subsidies, and the remaining “aid” primarily as a form of corporate welfare to wealthy commercial farms.

While Arkansas’ farmers have plenty of legitimate needs, they simply are not addressed by the pork-ridden legislation. Senator Mark Pryor recently called the measure a reinforcement of the “basic tenets of our farm policy.” Yet, the text of the legislation proves little of that. In fact, this aid to millionaire farmers primarily excludes the “mom and pop” farms it purports to help, encouraging them to consolidate into massive corporations.

Money is given to all full-time farmers, regardless of income, and part-time farmers earning as much as $2.5 million annually are eligible for aid. The cornerstone of Bush’s veto was a suggestion of a reasonable $200,000 annual income cap for eligible part-time farmers. “Countercyclical” subsidies are given to any agricultural conglomerate regardless of income, and individual payment limits for subsidies are removed.

None of these corporate welfare measures consider crop prices, the principle justification for any farm legislation. In fact, since the last farm bill in 2002, crop prices have risen a remarkable 281%, and total farm income has nearly doubled. Thus, instead of compensating for low crop prices, these subsidies tend to encourage overproduction— lowering prices.

Aside from these practical shortcomings, our international responsibilities are also neglected. Because of the heavy subsidies on all domestic cotton, keeping crop prices down, cheap US exports glut the market, causing artificially low prices worldwide. Impoverished cotton farmers in undeveloped countries, lacking the luxury of subsidies, are left with no means of competition.

It’s time for America’s policymakers on both sides of the aisle to return to fiscal discipline. We should focus on policies that truly benefit Americans, not ones that pad the pockets of wealthy agricultural businesses.

Will Simpson
Mountain View
To the Editor:

In a stark showing of bi-partianship, the United States federal legislature has abandoned the principle that our new Democratic majority stumped in the campaign: fiscal discipline. The subsidies bill was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost $307 billion, leading President Bush to veto the measure, before being swiftly overridden by both houses. It utilizes 66% of those appropriations for programs unrelated to farm subsidies, and the remaining “aid” primarily as a form of corporate welfare to wealthy commercial farms.

While Arkansas’ farmers have plenty of legitimate needs, they simply are not addressed by the pork-ridden legislation. Senator Mark Pryor recently called the measure a reinforcement of the “basic tenets of our farm policy.” Yet, the text of the legislation proves little of that. In fact, this aid to millionaire farmers primarily excludes the “mom and pop” farms it purports to help, encouraging them to consolidate into massive corporations.

Money is given to all full-time farmers, regardless of income, and part-time farmers earning as much as $2.5 million annually are eligible for aid. The cornerstone of Bush’s veto was a suggestion of a reasonable $200,000 annual income cap for eligible part-time farmers. “Countercyclical” subsidies are given to any agricultural conglomerate regardless of income, and individual payment limits for subsidies are removed.

None of these corporate welfare measures consider crop prices, the principle justification for any farm legislation. In fact, since the last farm bill in 2002, crop prices have risen a remarkable 281%, and total farm income has nearly doubled. Thus, instead of compensating for low crop prices, these subsidies tend to encourage overproduction— raising prices more.

Aside from these practical shortcomings, our international responsibilities are also neglected. Because of the heavy subsidies on all domestic cotton, keeping crop prices down, cheap US exports glut the market, causing artificially low prices worldwide. Impoverished cotton farmers in undeveloped countries, lacking the luxury of subsidies, are left with no means of competition.

It’s time for America’s policymakers on both sides of the aisle to return to fiscal discipline. We should focus on policies that truly benefit Americans, not pad the pockets of wealthy agricultural businesses.

Will Simpson
Mountain View