There's only one group of Americans that generates more sympathy among congressional leaders than hungry kids, African farmers, struggling farmers, angry energy consumers, or the rural poor.

I refer, of course, to freshmen members of the House of Representatives.

The Ruminant is constantly touched by the outpouring of concern that our congressional leaders have for these new members of Congress.

Of course, these brave men and women don't go to bed hungry, or face starvation from low cotton prices, or face greater risk of diabetes.

But, they do have to face the voters. Imagine the anxiety!!!

So, the Ruminant, always a patriot, asked: how well would farmers respresented by Freshmen members of the House be served by USDA if Congress shifted some subsidies to help pay for USDA conservation programs.

The answer, in a report to be released at noon today, is that farmers in 36 of 55 districts represented by freshmen members would receive a fairer share of federal farm spending if Congress shifted direct payments to share the cost of clean water or wildlife habitat. Farmers in 12 districts would see little or no change. Many of these districts are located in California, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York and Ohio — large farm states that currently receive little support from USDA.

So, farmers in 48 of 55 districts would receive more support from USDA or see little or no change if Congress reformed farm subsidies to help the environment. Overall, many more more farmers would be able to participate in USDA programs.

There are seven districts where farmers would farmers would receive slightly federal spending — you know, the districts where corn and soybean prices have nearly doubled over the last two years in response to surging demand for ethanol. You know,the districts where large commercial farmers receive the lion's share of farm subsidies and generally vote for one party.

The Ruminant wonder whether Congressional leaders are making a big mistake if they throw consumers and the hungry under the bus to pander to a few fat cat farmers and their lobbyists. Rural voters overwhelmingly support reasonable subsidy reforms, like subsidy payment limits, because subsidizing fat cat farmers has hurt more farmers than it has helped.

And, what about those poor, suffering Freshmen members who represent farmers in California, Florida, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania? For some reason, fat cat farmers growing corn and soybeans in the square states are "real farmers" and the farmers who grow the food we actually eat are forgotten.

The Ruminant wonders whether they will be forgotten by the voters.