Bloated farm bill misses the point

President Bush was right to veto the farm bill. He called it bloated, and it is. That Congress overrode his veto by huge margins reveals its eagerness to continue borrowing money and showering it on constituents.

All sorts of things were in the farm bill, and we support some of them. Food stamps, for instance. Our doubt reaches to the centerpiece: some $25 billion in annual cash subsidies, of which 90 percent has historically gone to growers of wheat, cotton, corn, soybeans and rice.There is simply no good reason to single out the growers of these crops and shower them with cash borrowed from China. Farmers who grow fruit and other vegetables typically don't get federal cash. Neither do those who raise beef, pork or chicken.

Supposedly, there is a "food security" reason for farm subsidies, but this is a mirage. America's guarantor of food security is its land, productivity, trade, and the U.S. Navy to patrol the sea lanes. Americans do not need to put wheat farmers on the dole in order to have bread.

Cash subsidies were started during the New Deal, when 25 percent of Americans lived on the farm. Crop prices were rock-bottom, farmers were going into foreclosure and there were no jobs in the cities.

All of that has changed. Today, fewer than 2 percent of Americans live on the farm, and the family income of farmers is above the national average. Most farmers are educated and have good tools. They can live without subsidies, as their counterparts do in Australia.

Finally, there is a grossness in the timing. In March, wheat hit $12.50 a bushel, which is a bit like $130 oil. Stores are raising the price of bread. Soybeans and cotton also hit highs, and rice has been rising so fast that recently Costco was rationing it.

These are fat days for farmers, and good for them. They are entitled to their luck, but not to permanent annual cash payments from the Federal Treasury.