THE FARM DOLE: 1. “Bush Is Said to Seek Sharp Cuts in Subsidy Payments to Farmers.” Hardcore.

2. He fights for it: here.

3. Resistance; emphasis added: Statement of Charles Kruse, President of Missouri Farm Bureau, on farm spending reductions in President Bush’s Budget

“While we are still in the process of learning more about what reductions President Bush is proposing for agriculture in next year’s budget, we are concerned about the impact of reduced federal funding on Missouri’s farms and rural communities,” said Charles Kruse, president of Missouri Farm Bureau.

“In the past, there have been years in which government support payments were absolutely critical to the health of our state’s agricultural economy. For example, in 2002 government payments comprised 71 percent of Missouri’s net farm income. This underscores the importance of the current Farm Bill to farmers and rural America,” said Kruse. “We believe the current Farm Bill has worked well to hold the line on costs, with government outlays for agriculture being below budget for the last three years.”

“On this day that we in Farm Bureau call Food Check Out Day, we are reminded of the affordable food supply the American farmer provides consumers, thanks in part to the economic stability provided by farm programs. It only takes the average American consumer 37 days to earn enough income to pay for their annual food supply, which translates into America spending the lowest percentage on food of any country in the world,” said Kruse.

“Missouri Farm Bureau will be working with our Congressional delegation in the months ahead as they write a new budget for 2006. We will find ways to keep American agriculture strong and capable of competing in the world economy. We will also remind the American public that thanks to efficiency and productivity of America’s farmers and ranchers, we have the most abundant, safe and affordable food supply in the world,” Kruse concluded.

4. Resistance and rebuttal: Ramesh Ponnuru lays the smack down on a subsidy defender. (Defender states the case for subsidies well, too, so it’s a twofer.) Ramesh doesn’t add three things I would say:

a. One of the major reasons we’ve valued the cultural benefits of family farms is their independence. Subsidies kill that independence.

b. (He gestures at this but doesn’t close the deal:) Raising food prices is regressive, hurting the poor first and most.

c. The government has no business picking winners and losers in economic interplays between e.g. farmers and food consumers. The government isn’t good at it and shouldn’t do it even if it did possess competence in this area.

Read more of my growling at the Farm Dole blog–although for some reason I can’t update that anymore. Still, if you putter around in the archives you will find good links and some arguments and…stuff.