The legislators negotiating a new farm bill evidently don't do their own grocery shopping.

Otherwise, they'd have seen the dramatic rise in food prices. And they'd have done more than trim only about $400 million from the $26 billion in direct payment subsidies they're planning for farmers. Nor would they have insisted on a new $4 billion permanent disaster fund for ag producers.

Congress is working feverishly to finish this lousy bill, which we hope a presidential veto deeply buries. President Bush rightly warned legislators about giving farmers big payments to grow crops such as corn, cotton, soybeans and rice. The subsidies directly affect the prices you're paying at the grocery story. They're not the only effect, but a serious one.

Bread prices are rising because farmers make more money growing corn than wheat. Congress has mandated several billion gallons of ethanol by 2009, which means there's a huge market for corn; it's the main way ethanol gets produced here.

As a result of this shift, and global demand for corn, American farmers are growing fewer acres of wheat. Production is down 24 million acres since the top year of 1981.

Fortunately, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison are connecting the dots between Washington and the grocery and feed stores. The two Republicans are pushing Congress to ease off the federal mandate to produce so much ethanol.

We concur. Along with replacing crop subsidies with better crop insurance, Washington should rethink those ethanol numbers at least, until other ways to produce the alternative fuel come online.

These changes could help the pocketbook at the grocery store and feed store. Regrettably, that doesn't seem to be on the minds of the folks writing that farm bill.

— The Dallas Morning News• • •Fill the gas tank, or stock up on basmati rice?There are many ways to spend those government rebates that began going out the other day. With the cost of living soaring, consumers are likely to spend this extra cash on necessities, not on the kind of retail purchases that Washington officials had hoped would stimulate the economy.When Congress and President Bush agreed in February on the $165 billion package, Bush worried that the aid would arrive too late. The economy, he said, might improve by the time the IRS mailed out the checks.He needn't have worried. The economy is still weak. Consumer confidence dipped in April amid concerns of soaring inflation and a faltering job market. Bush and congressional Democrats blamed each other last week for failing to address the economic crisis swiftly. While they were sniping, your friendly neighborhood gas station attendant was changing the price on the pump again.So, rather than buy flat-screen TVs or washing machines, many people will spend the rebates just to make ends meet. For them, the checks of up to $1,200 per couple (and an additional $300 per child) couldn't come at a better time.The supermarket checkout counter is no better. The cost of milk has risen more than 25 percent in the past year; the price of eggs is 40 percent higher. Food accounts for about 13 percent of the typical household's spending.Add to these higher costs the housing crisis, which has reduced homeowners' real wealth and limited their ability to obtain credit. Wages, meanwhile, are not keeping pace.Checks for $1,200 per couple won't come close to solving these problems. But they will help many families with their monthly bills, or to pay down a credit card. That's welcome relief for consumers in the short term. Some will save what they can, fearing this rough patch isn't over.Long range, however, this infusion of cash for low- and middle-income taxpayers probably isn't going to shorten a recession, or what feels like one. The more people spend on necessities such as food and gas, the less impact the rebates will have on stimulating an economic recovery.

— The Philadelphia Inquirer