We understand the disappointment of many in farm states, including Oklahoma, who are upset that Congress this week did not approve disaster relief.

We agree with Sen. Tom Coburn, the relief amendment needs a closer look to ensure that funds go only for relief and the aid doesn’t turn into a subsidy program for wealthy farmers or corporate farms.

The online digest for the U.S. Senate reported Tuesday that an agricultural disaster relief amendment did not receive the necessary three-fifths vote for continued consideration and was stricken from an agriculture appropriations bill.

The amendment began as a more than $6 billion package this summer, was cut to $4.4 billion this fall, and Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., proposed a $3.3 billion package in the House of Representatives recently. Lucas and others supported relief because of floods in some parts of the country and droughts and subsequent fires in other parts.

We are not unsympathetic to people ravaged by disasters, but occasional floods and dry spells are part of farming, and agriculture can’t expect a bailout every time a flood, fire or dry spell occurs. As Coburn pointed out, farmers can receive insurance through a federally subsidized program, yet some farmers didn’t avail themselves of it.

They gambled, hoping to clear bigger profits by not purchasing insurance, and taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for their gamble.
Also, we hear regularly about fraud in the Katrina disaster relief and payouts to people not affected by the hurricane. We don’t want to deny relief to people in need. But again, this agriculture relief amendment evidently raised questions about whether the relief would go to the needy or those who will add to their profits.

That’s been the problem with U.S. subsidy programs in agriculture for decades, and why many want to see them come to an end.
Agricultural interests are exerting a lot of pressure for assistance, saying that 5 to 10 percent of farmers will go out of business without help.

The farm industry also is making the oft-heard plea that assistance is needed to save family farms.

It may sound hardhearted, but we are not living in the era of family farms anymore. Every industry has adapted to a changing world, and agriculture’s appeal to some American idyllic past won’t help it fit into a global market.

Let farmers avail themselves of the programs in place now, and let’s rethink this amendment and our farm programs.