As Scott Kilman and Roger Thurow point out, In Fight Against Farm Subsidies, Even Farmers Are Joining Foes:
There is a long history of mostly failed attempts to pare farm payments. But the current anti-subsidy sentiment, rising over the last year in the U.S., is stirring attention because it is unusually broad. Students for Social Justice at Baylor University in Texas have dumped cotton balls on the ground to protest cotton subsidies. The foundation of late Nascar legend Dale Earnhardt has teamed up with rock star Bono, whose movement wants to overhaul Western agriculture policies to boost African development.
Some facts:
Last year, the government paid a record $23 billion to farmers.
[...]
The government created subsidies during the Great Depression to fight rural poverty. At the time, 25% of the U.S. population lived on farms. Farmers could get federal money for producing commodities including corn, cotton and wheat when market prices fell below certain levels.Today, farmers represent less than 1% of the population. Yet, thanks to labor-saving technology, their operations have exploded in size. Since subsidies remain tied to production, subsidy checks have ballooned. The government caps annual payments to an individual farmer at $360,000, though loopholes allow higher payments.
Most subsidies go to farmers who are wealthier than the typical U.S. taxpayer. Little of it goes to poor farmers because subsides are tied to production. According to an analysis by Environmental Working Group, 72% of subsidy money goes to 10% of the recipients. The group opposes output-linked subsidies on the grounds that overproduction hurts the environment. Nor do subsidies do much for rural economic development. Most rural people are no longer engaged in farming and two-thirds of those who farm are growing nonsubsidized crops such as fruits and vegetables.