Corey,
The subsidy system as is certainly works to the advantage of the big industrial processors. It gives them a steady supply of dirt-cheap inputs (ie, corn, soy, etc.) which allows them to undercut organics on the supermarket shelf and still make a nice profit. So your point is well-taken.

My response is this: The system is so skewed to the advantage of the multinational food giants, local food networks are in such a state of collapse, and farms of almost all sizes are struggling so mightily, that I'd hate to see the $14.5 billion or so per year now devoted to commodity subsidies disappear into the ether (or go up in smoke in Iraq).  

Rather, I'd like to see Congress cobble together a support system that rewards other things besides gross output of a few commodities. Why not, say, reward farmers who sell at least half of their product for consumption within a 30 mile radius? Or pay farmers not to use chemicals?

Or, to take a different approach, devote some of that money to helping school, hospital, and nursing-home cafeterias buy local food. Or improve infrastructure in existing farmers markets. Or dole it out in low-interest loans (or grants?) to help new farmers buy land, which in most areas that have established markets for local veggies (think NY or SF) has gotten prohibitively expensive.

The reality is that, given current fiscal realities, any money that's slashed from the 2007 Farm Bill will be gone forever. If we've spent the last 70 or so years subsidizing industrial ag, isn't it time to level the playing field by subsidizing locally directed, sustainable ag for a while?
Thanks for the response,
Tom

David,
That's very true, and an important point missing from my piece. But it's also precisely why recent comments from Johanns and Portman seem so significant. Both guys are talking explicitly about cutting the commodity program. Of course, the ideas I lay out above--restructuring the Farm Bill to support local, sustainable ag--is a pipe dream at this point. However, pressure from the WTO does provide a small opening for real reform, and sustainable-ag activists have to try to bust it wide open.
The other thing is that the Bushies can slash conservation and food stamps all they want, but it won't appease the WTO. That group is demanding cuts in "trade-distorting subsidies," and it's looking increasingly like it will get its wish.
Tom

If I could respond to Tom's perspective with a slightly different view:

If you look at the history of any federal subsidy program, I think you will find that it is eventually diverted to benefit the wealthy and powerful.  The original New Deal era farm subsidy program was aimed at least in part, at helping small farmers (although it also aimed to decrease their number based on the assumption that trouble on the farm was due to an excess of farmers).  Well... now it all goes to large commodity operations - most of which would probably go out of business without government support, or have to change dramatically (perhaps by adopting organic certification?).

Increasing subsidies for local organic agriculture sounds tempting - but I fear it would eventually all get channeled to a few big farming operations - i.e. the eventual ConAgras or Monsantos of the organic world.  Whole Foods maybe?  Is this a good thing?  I hardly think so.  Eliminating 14.7 billion in subsidies will drive up prices - helping all the farmers who don't get the subsidies.  That would be a big help to most of my farmer friends.  The people who would be hurt, I think, would be the poor food consumer.  I'd rather see the money coming out of big ag subsidies go to support increases in foodstamps.

ps. I am glad to see that Grist has started offering thoughtful, quality coverage of agricultural issues.  It is hard to find (and I admit even to being disappointed with some of Grist's historical coverage of these issues).  I look forward to Tom's next post.