MEMBERS of the Democratic-controlled House voted yesterday to pass a five-year farm bill that will cost an estimated $300 billion, distort markets, create an expanding entitlement, keep outrageous subsidies, harm developing nations, fund pet projects, and undermine the international market for American farm products.

President Bush threatened to veto the bill, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi D-Calif., mustered a 318-vote, veto-proof majority to pass it. The Senate was expected to pass the Senate today.

Although not everything in the bill is bad, it's the kind of work that gives Washington a bad name.

First, to be fair, a few facts:

Most of the money - 66 percent or about $200 billion, would go to food stamps and other domestic nutrition programs, which help poor people while subsidizing farm income.

The bill would adjust the income limits on food stamps eligibility on a continual basis. That would help about 11 million low-income people next year, and would also keep costs rising indefinitely.

Direct subsidies for growers of rice, cotton, corn, soybeans, wheat and other crops would account for about $43 billion or 14 percent of the bill's price tag. And although most farmers don't get subsidies, people making as much as $750,000 in farm income could get payments - and so could their spouses.

The whole American subsidy game damages the good name of the United States abroad. Critics contend that subsidies give U.S. farmers an unfair advantage over competitors in Africa, Latin America and Asia, a fact that is used against the United States in trade talks.

Congress wants to pass a generous farm bill this year. Electoral College votes hang in the balance.

But just once, Americans would like to have seen responsible policy beat out political calculation rather than the other way around.

Congress ought to take another look.

MEMBERS of the Democratic-controlled House voted yesterday to pass a five-year farm bill that will cost an estimated $300 billion, distort markets, create an expanding entitlement, keep outrageous subsidies, harm developing nations, fund pet projects, and undermine the international market for American farm products.

President Bush threatened to veto the bill, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi D-Calif., mustered a 318-vote, veto-proof majority to pass it. The Senate was expected to pass the Senate today.

Although not everything in the bill is bad, it's the kind of work that gives Washington a bad name.

First, to be fair, a few facts:

Most of the money - 66 percent or about $200 billion, would go to food stamps and other domestic nutrition programs, which help poor people while subsidizing farm income.

The bill would adjust the income limits on food stamps eligibility on a continual basis. That would help about 11 million low-income people next year, and would also keep costs rising indefinitely.

Direct subsidies for growers of rice, cotton, corn, soybeans, wheat and other crops would account for about $43 billion or 14 percent of the bill's price tag. And although most farmers don't get subsidies, people making as much as $750,000 in farm income could get payments - and so could their spouses.

The whole American subsidy game damages the good name of the United States abroad. Critics contend that subsidies give U.S. farmers an unfair advantage over competitors in Africa, Latin America and Asia, a fact that is used against the United States in trade talks.

Congress wants to pass a generous farm bill this year. Electoral College votes hang in the balance.

But just once, Americans would like to have seen responsible policy beat out political calculation rather than the other way around.

Congress ought to take another look.