Here’s how the D.C. daily presents the series: “As Congress prepares to debate a farm bill (in 2007), The Washington Post is examining federal agriculture subsidies that grew to more than $25 billion (in 2005), despite near-record farm revenue.”

Make no mistake, the U.S. farm program has shortcomings that need to be mended, and they are pointed out in this series. Some farmers do abuse the farm program, just as there are some who abuse other government programs.

To point a few of the problems with the program:

Some recipients of farm program payments are not working farmers.

Also, there are producers of some farm commodities who receive government subsidies, and others who don’t.

When the feds come up with ad hoc disaster assistance packages, some farmers might qualify for payments even though they didn’t have a disaster, while other farmers hit hard by a disaster might not receive enough assistance.

However, this series by The Post itself has shortcomings in that the writers failed to address -— or chose to ignore — the very nature of farming and the dynamics of production agriculture that create the need for a government program in the first place. The reporters didn’t bother to explain how farmers are at the mercy of the weather and what it’s like to be a price taker while dealing with increasing input and equipment costs.

Their series was an example of prescription journalism — they had a preconception in mind to do a series of stories lambasting the U.S. farm program, then went out to get the pieces to build it.

And because the writers are from a big city newspaper like The Washington Post, we’re to believe that somehow the results of their fact-finding mission is the gospel.

However, having smug metro reporters who rarely set foot off concrete and who have only a foggy notion of where their food comes from jet to the prairie and write about “harvesting cash, working a farm subsidy” is kind of like me going to D.C. and doing a big investigative report on how taxpayer dollars are being wasted on urban renewal and carpooling lanes.

“It is clear that East Coast media have little understanding of federal farm policy and its effects on the lives of families in states such as North Dakota,” wrote Sen. Kent Conrad in response to one of the articles.

The House Agriculture Committee has put together a backgrounder, “The Facts on U.S. Farm Policy” which still applies today in dispelling misconceptions about the U.S. farm program.

Following are some myth busters from the piece, which can be found online at www.wheatworld.org. At the ‘Wheat Info’ tab, click on NAWG Issues, then scroll down to House Agriculture Committee 2002 Farm Bill Briefer. Some examples:

MYTH: U.S. farm policy bilks taxpayers and busts the budget.
FACT: U.S. farm policy accounts for little more than one-half of one percent (0.56%) of the total U.S. budget.
The annual cost is $48.08 per person or $128.28 per household, while the cost of supporting the total U.S. budget is estimated to be $8,558.94 per year for each person, or $22,835.33 per year for the average household.
Social Security takes up the largest portion of the federal budget, at 23%, followed by non-fefense discretionary spending (19%) Medicare and Medicaid (19%), national defense (16%) and net interest (interest on national debt ) which gobbles 10 percent of the budget pie).

MYTH: The 2002 Farm Bill depresses farm prices and increases food prices.
FACT: American consumers enjoy the safest, most abundant and most affordable food supply in the world for 10.9% of their income — less than consumers in any other country (to compare: consumers in the UK spend 11.2%of their income on food; France 14.8%; Australia, 14.9%; Germany, 17.3%; Japan, 17.6%; Israel, 20.5%; South Africa, 27.5%; India, 51.3%). In any case, the 2002 Farm Bill cannot depress farm prices and increase food prices at the same time.

MYTH: U.S. farm policy benefits big farms, not real farm families.
FACT: Critics of U.S. farm policy use the USDA’s definition of a “farmer,” which is anyone who produces a crop valued at $1,000 or more (the equivalent of a four-acre corn farm), so the percentage of farm families who are trying to make most or all of their living off the land is going to be small compared to the overall number of actual farmers.

In other words, most anyone who farms enough to be a full-time farmer is a “big farmer” by comparison.

While 38% of farm families receive 87% of the benefits, these farm families produce 92% of America’s food and fiber and make most if not all of their living off the land, operating the equivalent of a 372-acre corn farm or larger, about the average sized Minnesota farm.

MYTH: U.S. farm policy is nothing but corporate welfare benefiting only those receiving direct help.
FACT: The U.S. ag sector is vital to a strong rural and urban economy, with the food and fiber industry creating 25 million jobs, producing $3.5 trillion in output and accounting for 15% of U.S. Gross Domestic Product. These figures would be even higher with the growth in renewable fuels.

MYTH: U.S. farm policy interferes with international trade.
FACT: U.S. farm policy complies with U.S. trade agreements. And with foreign tariffs on farm goods in some countries more than five times higher than U.S. tariffs, as well as foreign subsidies, some more than six times per acre higher than support to U.S. farmers, U.S. farm policy helps level the playing field so our farmers can compete in a world market that is not always free or fair.

Critics of U.S. farm policy would cede our food production to unstable places like the Third World, the House Ag Committee piece points out, but in these times, does any American want to depend on this, just as we do for much of our energy needs?

U.S. farm policy is important to national security, ensuring a safe, abundant and affordable domestic food supply — grown by farmers who know how to produce it. (Not by Washington Post reporters and editors, who wouldn’t have a clue.)

Click here for the Post's series of farm articles.

Tracy Sayler is an ag writer based near Fargo, N.D.