AN AMENDMENT to the 2007 farm bill that would have limited federal payments to well-to-do farmers failed in the Senate yesterday. The vote was 56-43 -- in favor of the measure. How can a bill backed by a substantial bipartisan majority not pass? Welcome to the wonderful world of agriculture politics.

Is limiting federal subsidies to farmers with incomes over $750,000 unreasonable?

The U.S. must also reduce subsidies that distort global markets with dire consequences for farmers in developing countries, while at the same time maintaining an adequate safety net for farmers who need help the most. The Courier-Journal (Oct. 17 editorial) is correct: "Almost everyone knows what needs to be done. The Senate should just do it." With McConnell's support of payment limits and other reforms, it just might happen.
The Rev. CLIFTON KIRKPATRICK
Stated Clerk of the General Assembly
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
Louisville 40202

Senators can't seem to get off the dime, so a $286 billion farm bill remains stalled.

Following a week of sluggish debate, the Senate has yet to consider any of the dozens of farm bill amendments that lawmakers have authored. The political gridlock and a presidential veto threat raise the prospect that Congress could simply punt this year.

"Here we sit," Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, conceded Thursday.

The Bush administration, setting the stage for another confrontation with Congress over a major spending measure, issued a veto threat yesterday against the Senate version of the $288 billion farm bill.

Agricultural policy is not sexy. You probably don't know the intricacies of "loan deficiency payments" or "base acreage," and you probably don't care. This was once an agrarian nation, but now there's a less than 1% chance that you're a farmer, and if you are, you're probably part time; the average farm family gets 82% of its income from nonfarm sources. We're not a people of the soil anymore, and for most of us, our eyes glaze over when we see farm statistics like the ones in that last sentence.
But farms still cover most of our land, consume most of our water and produce most of our food. If you eat, drink or pay taxes--or care about the economy, the environment or our global reputation--U.S. agricultural policy is a big deal.

Almost everyone knows what needs to be done. The Senate should just do it.

Earlier this year, the Democratic-led House passed a $286 billion bill little different from the subsidy-laden one passed by the Republican-led House five years ago. If the Senate, which is about to begin work on its bill, cannot produce something substantially better than the House, President Bush should not hesitate to veto the final version.

"U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., said Monday at the Iowa State Fair that the Conservation Security Program will be part of the 2007 farm bill, 'or there won't be a bill.' "

"Credit Brown and Durbin with fresh thinking. If their Senate colleagues are as creative, they can force the House to reconsider its error. Farm bills come along only every five years. The time for reform is now."

Seldom does an elected official get to cast a single vote that would be good for his home state, restore sanity to national policy and help feed the world.
Kentuckians Mitch McConnell and Jim Bunning will have that chance as Congress begins debating this year's farm bill.

After calling for bipartisanship, President Bush surprised Senate Democrats with plans to renominate a controversial list of judges – some of whom may be unacceptable even to a few Republican senators. "It's an unfortunate signal," said one senior Democratic Senate aide.

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.