The farm bill should be renamed the nutrition bill. That's the way to get Congress and the American people focused on spending taxpayer dollars on healthier priorities.

Clearly, that is not happening with the current version of the bill, which would authorize billions of dollars in subsidies for the continued production of crops that produce unhealthful food.

By now, it's clear to just about everyone that the nation needs to encourage people to eat more fruits and vegetables. And, it's more obvious than ever that the federal government shouldn't be throwing subsidies at the production of the cheap fats, oils and sweeteners that are compounding the country's obesity problem — especially when — as Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, points out — farmers are enjoying record prices and incomes.

Yet the five-year, $288 billion bill on the floor of the Senate would largely keep the same subsidies to farmers in the Midwest and South for growing the same crops that are now contributing to the rise in devastating diseases such as diabetes and hypertension.

Democrats in Congress should be ashamed. Fear of political backlash from a relatively small number of wealthy farmers is keeping them from reducing or redirecting the farm bill funds.

The first step the Senate should take is to accept a bipartisan proposal by Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, that would limit payments to any individual farmer to $250,000 a year.

Then it should spend a portion of that savings on the federal program to get more locally grown fruits and vegetables into schools that participate in the National School Lunch Program.

Fruit and vegetable growers in California aren't asking for subsidies, a testament to their integrity. But they do want to increase federal money for research on how to streamline the production and distribution of their perishable products.

The Senate also should increase the allocation to fund the federal food stamp program. The average benefit of $1 a meal is ridiculously outdated. The amount needs to better reflect the cost of healthful food.

The nation needs to fight its obesity problem. It can start by cutting the fat out of the farm bill.

— San Jose (Calif.)Mercury News

Several decades ago, Washington created the alternative minimum tax so that extremely wealthy people with sharp lawyers and accountants would still have to pay at least some federal income taxes.That was a reasonable objective. But the tax has not been properly adjusted for inflation, and consequently has hit more and more middle-income people.Everybody in Washington laments the problem and claims to want it fixed. But the repairs have been temporary "patches" that leave the middle class vulnerable.The Bush administration has simply failed to focus on this most obvious of necessary reforms.There were always higher priorities, and some conservative lawmakers hoped that middle-class disenchantment with the minimum tax might kill it entirely. This, of course, would mean a financial bonanza for many of their wealthy campaign contributors.Meanwhile, more middle-class Americans have gotten a raw deal. Even if the minimum tax hasn't hit them yet, they must waste a considerable amount of time figuring that out.The Internal Revenue Service now warns that unless Congress takes action soon, there will be more trouble ahead on tax returns for 2007. And some families earning less than $75,000 could get hit.Fixing the problem requires money, and the Democratic proposals to use additional tax revenue from higher-income people seem fair and logical.These taxpayers, after all, were the ones for whom the minimum tax was originally designed. And they have benefited disproportionately from the Bush tax cuts in recent years — even as some middle-class taxpayers were hit with higher tax bills.The president continues to play an unhelpful role, opposing a House plan on the alternative minimum tax that would protect 23 million Americans from tax increases. If their taxes go up, they should know whom to blame.<b><i>— The Kansas City Star</i></b>