The 2002 Farm Bill, which will end up being worth $190 billion over 10 years, was overwhelmingly passed by Congress and signed into effect by President Bush on May 13, 2002. The 2002 Farm Bill was a complete reversal of the previous farm bill, which was aimed at weaning farmers off government subsidies.

The new farm bill has been met with both applause and opposition. While the 2002 Farm Bill is widely acknowledged to include beneficial acts such as providing over $17 billion to encourage conservation practices and also establishes the position of undersecretary for civil rights at the USDA, to many it leaves much to be desired. Opponents contend that it is the large corporate farms that are the real winners, not the small family farmers who all savvy politicians say they are fighting for. Even President Bush was quoted as saying, “It will promote farmer independence, and preserve the farm way of life for generations.” In reality, the top 10 percent of farm-subsidy recipients collect two-thirds of the money, and the bottom 80 percent get just one-sixth. The bill largely ignores issues lobbied for by family farmers and grassroots farm organizations, such as a ban on meatpacker ownership of livestock and increases in farm income through higher loan rates or support prices. Instead of an annual cap on payments it allows a ridiculously large cap — only farmers with adjusted gross incomes of $2.5 million or more cannot receive subsidy payments.

Farming, which has long been romanticized as an occupation in which independent-minded individuals choose their own destiny, has become more akin to a welfare state where farmers are dependent upon the government for mere survival.

The 2002 Farm Bill helps to create a false sense of security to farmers. Is it sustainable for farmers to spend upward of $2,000 (plus taxes) for an acre of land to produce corn yielding 80-200 bushels that barely bring a market price of over $2 a bushel? Can the government be expected to heavily subsidize farmers forever?

It’s not likely, so what will happen if and when they choose to stop? With the ever-increasing global market and rapid technological changes, agriculture certainly has its share of trials and tribulations. At times the whole system seems downright broken. But surely the solution isn’t to throw huge amounts of money at it and hope it goes away. That is merely sweeping the issues under the rug. Why not try to address the issues at the root of the problem instead?

The American public is led to believe that farmers’ incomes need to be subsidized in order to maintain a cheap and plentiful food supply. But what is the difference if we pay slightly more in food prices or if we pay $190 billion of our tax dollars? Farming, whether you like it or not, has become a business. Why not treat it as one? If money can’t be made one way, you try something different or get out. That’s the way any other business is run — why should farming be the exception?

Blame for the current farm bill can not placed on either political party. Though the 2002 Farm Bill was largely a bipartisan bill, seven Democratic and 28 Republican senators were still against it. Even President Bush was initially against the costly bill, which was an increase of $83 billion over the previous farm bill, but succumbed to the fear of upcoming elections. To not support the bill was to be branded anti-farmer. Such was often the case with both parties. But once again, politics as usual and special interests won out over the good of the public.

Ben Kuennen is a graduate student in agricultural education & studies from Fort Atkinson.