You would guess that an expensive, wasteful government program doesn't really save consumers (at least the taxpaying ones) money? Come on, you were a farmer, you're smarter than that.
The original impetus for regulation of agriculture stemmed from (1)exorbitant shipping rates of railroads that were granted monopoly status by state and Federal governments and (2)the effects of market and weather shifts on the once enormous population of farmers. Only 108 years ago, almost 40% of the American population lived on farms. As of 2000, the percentage was less than 2%. Huge swaths of rural America now covered with second growth forest, used as pasture, or urbanized were once filled with subsistence farmers. These conditions have changed. All of the various regulations, however good their intent, have failed.
The free market is the only solution that will benefit both farmer and consumer.
I retract my statement about the programs not saving the consumer money at the grocery stores.
The farm programs do save consumers money at the grocery store. You can calculate the savings for yourself.
The real effect of farmers being able to financially leave the programs will not be felt at the grocery store until this this summer.
How much did you and your family spend in groceries last year? How more are you spending now? How much more do expect to spend by summertime, when the effect of the 2007 crop will have worked it's way though the system, with the price of milk, meat eggs etc. reflecting the new economics of a 'no farm program anymore'.
The farm programs cost about $20 billion each year. Thats about $70 per person, $280 for a typical family of four.
Calculate from that whether the farm programs have personally saved you money.
I'll make another guess. They have.