It's two years overdue, but the farm bill finally made it through Congress and on Friday was signed into law by President Barack Obama.
Texas farmers and ranchers will be affected by a number of changes, including the elimination of direct payments to farmers and the introduction of mandatory origin-labeling requirements for meat packers. But these minor changes fall far short of weaning American agriculture from its dependence on government protections.
Federal supports for agriculture manipulate prices and insulate producers from competition. They also raise the price of food for consumers and infuriate our agricultural trading partners, causing problems for U.S. trade negotiators as they negotiate agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and especially at the World Trade Organization.
Many critics point the finger at the government's treatment of a Texas agricultural product, sugar, as a prime example. And they have a point.
The sugar program is certainly a complicated maze of import quotas and loan programs designed to keep our sugar industry afloat in the face of the trade policies of producers such as Brazil and Mexico, whose governments aggressively subsidize their sugar industries in a transparent and effective campaign to gain global dominance.
It's hard to defend the sugar program, at least from a free-market and free-trade philosophy. But that leaves open the question: What should we do about sugar?