No one knows whether there will be a 2012 farm bill, but we do know that it there is one, nutrition programs -- food stamps, school lunches, WIC, etc. -- will take up the lion’s share of farm bill funding, well in excess of $90 billion a year. But is the funding serving the neediest Americans? Find out on Thursday at AEI.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 introduced many of the Farm Bill provisions that remain present today, including precursors to the current food and nutrition programs (FANPs). This policy served multiple purposes, including enhanced demand for farm products to alleviate low farm income and reduce agricultural surpluses, and enhanced food security and improved nutrition for the poor.

In the wake of the newly-released Ryan budget proposal, AEI agricultural economist Vincent Smith discusses the implications for agricultural subsidies and explains why more budget-cutting is imperative.

At this AEI event, experts will discuss the economic burden of ethanol subsidies and the efficiency of Title I of the Farm Bill.

Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Representative Ron Kind (D-WI), Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) will begin the discussion of the need to reform agriculture subsidies in the 2012 Farm Bill. Barry K. Goodwin of North Carolina State University will discuss many of the myths and legends incorrectly used by the agriculture industry to extend these harmful policies.

The US Average Crop Revenue (ACRE) program was introduced as part of the 2008 Farm Bill. ACRE was marketed as a farm revenue safety net program, but in reality ACRE payments are largely driven by decreases in agricultural commodity prices from recent levels.

The shallow-loss program would give farmers subsidies to bring them up to 90 percent or even 95 percent of the average revenues they have received for any given crop over the previous five years whenever current revenues from those crops fall below those amounts. Anyone who knows anything about American agriculture understands just how implausible that idea is.

The country could save $100 billion or more over 10 years by reducing farm subsidies without endangering struggling farmers or affecting food production.