DADvocate

In USA Today:

Our view on agricultural subsidies: Down on the farm, it's business as usual

House Democrats botch chance to overhaul wasteful crop spending.
If now isn't the time to overhaul the nation's Depression-era system of farm subsidies, it's hard to imagine a better one.

Crop prices are high, driven in part by a huge demand for corn to make ethanol, which squeezes the land available for other crops and raises their prices as well. Democrats took over Congress last year, vowing to show they're the financially responsible stewards their Republican predecessors were not. And President Bush asked Congress to direct the subsidies to the smaller, family farmers that politicians love to claim they support.

So, given this confluence of events, what did House Democrats do? Not much. Last week, under heavy pressure from farm organizations and fearing for the survival of Democratic freshmen from rural districts, they pushed through a business-as-usual farm bill that largely extends the current subsidy system for five more years.

In a small nod toward change, the bill cut the $2.5 million annual income limit for getting subsidies to $1 million (or $2 million if a husband and wife each claim subsidies). House Democratic leaders called this "reform," but it was just a ghost of the real thing. Bush had proposed a $200,000 ceiling.

Emphasis added

Millionaire farmers getting subsidies. Wow!

My late ex-father-in-law was a millionaire farmer worth somewhere between $5 and $10 million when he died. He was also a devote Catholic who once "donated" $10,000 to the Catholic church to get an autographed picture of the Pope. (That's more than Pete Rose gets for autographs.) During Bill Clinton's run for a second term, I discussed with my father-in-law at the time whom he was going to vote for. "I'm voting Democrat. Everyone knows the Democrats did more for the farmers than the Republicans ever did."

I mentioned that Clinton/Gore supported abortion which is clearly against the teachings of the Catholic faith. My ex-in-law hesitated for a moment then responded, "Well, I'm voting Democrat. The Democrats have helped farmers ever since Roosevelt."

Buying votes. That's why Democrats like farm subsidies. You can own 3,000 acres of farmland and have an income in the millions and still get handouts. Of course, that's what Democrats do best, take your money and give it to someone else, thus creating a dependence on government and building a voting base that wants that easy money the government took from you.

Additionally, I know a farmer whose tax return I caught a glimpse of last year. Less than $20,000 adjusted gross income. Yet, he drives a brand new Dodge diesel quad cab pickup truck that costs over $40,000. What the article doesn't mention is that farmers have a myriad of deductions. Farmers also conduct a lot of transactions on a cash only basis making income difficult to track by the IRS.

We don't need the IRS to more closely track farmers' incomes. We just need a more reasonable approach to farm supports. I'm all for ensuring an abundant food supply but there must be a better way.

Instapundit.

BTW - Part of my retirement plan is to engage in small time farming. (Seriously.) I hope they don't cut the subsidies too much. :-)