We need a farm safety net as modern and as entreprenuerial as our farmers. 

A farm safety net crafted in response to the Dust Bowl and the Depression is no longer needed when farmers have not only joined the middle class but have also joined the investor class.

Farmers are enjoying record prices and have average household income of more than $80,000 a year — or nearly twice as much as the average American household. The large commercial farmers who collect the lion's share of farm subsidies have farm household income greater than $270,000 a year. According to USDA, the net worth of our largest commercial farms is, on average, more than $2.2 million.

Unfortunately, the safety net proposed by the House Agriculture Committee ignores these and other important developments, such as a federal ethanol mandate that has caused corn and soybean prices to soar. 

Spending $26 billion on "direct" subsidy payments — which are linked to past production, not market prices – provides many large commercial farmers a security blanket, not a safety net.  And, linking farm subsidies to rising and falling prices ignores the impacts of droughts, floods and other events that reduce yields.

Helping farmers when they need help — and reducing second helpings from the federal farm trough such as direct payments — should be the foundation of farm policy.

But, the proposal developed by the House Agriculture Committee and embraced by many Democratic leaders would provide unlimited subsidies to 99.9 percent of America's farmers, regardless of need. The means test proposed by Chairman Peterson would deny subsidies to roughly 3,000 farm owners and operators — out of 1.6 million.

What's more, the Peterson proposal would renew "direct" subsidy payments — which were created to wean farmers off subsidies but have been an entitlement  — for a third time and would raise price supports for many program crops.

The safety net proposed by House reformers like Reps. Ron Kind and Paul Ryan, by contrast, would provide farmers a safety net, not a security blanket.

Their Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment would reform the farm safety net to be linked to farm revenue, not prices, and to set price supports below the market average. Their proposal, developed by USDA and endorsed in concept by many farm organizations would help farmers when they need help in times of low prices and low yields. Price supports would be subject an annual cap of $250,000 per person, and farmers with net farm income of more than $250,00 would be denied any support.

The centerpiece of the Fairness amendment is gradually reducing direct payments.

As the Ruminant has noted before, direct payments were supposed to be the methadone, not the heroin. Under the Fairness amendment, direct payments would be reduced by $10.4 billion over five years to help meet urgent priorities, including more funds for food stamps, conservation, and rural development. Americans represented by nearly 350 members of the House would fare better of the Fairness amendment is adopted.

Most of our farmers are ask comfortable with a spreadsheet as they are spreading manure. We a safety net as modern as they are.