Indeed replacing the existing policy tools with giving farmers a high revenue guarantee might, at least in the short run, have cost the government less than the existing policy. In an ideal world, clear policy objectives and a good understanding of the impacts of alternative policy tools would guide the actions of legislators. Those policy tools that achieved the desired objective at least cost to society would be selected. In theory, if policy were made in this manner, the greatest good for the greatest number of people would result, and taxes would be used efficiently. But to suggest that policy is made with an eye towards only the efficient use of taxpayer s money is an oversimplification.
Every policy involves winners and losers.
Rather than passively accepting their fate in the name of policy efficiency, prospective losers often join together and lobby legislators for a policy that cuts or eliminates their losses. As the search for farm policy objectives continues, agriculture needs to address head-on the question of what broad public policy objectives are being met through the federal support of agriculture. But if agriculture is to compete successfully for expanded federal dollars in the next farm bill, urban legislators will need to be convinced why more federal support is needed and what is the ultimate objective of such support.