The argument for farm subsidies -- though not the ones we have now
By Ezra Klein
Mark Bittman makes the case for mending, rather than ending, farm subsidies:
Eliminating the $5 billion in direct agricultural payments would level the playing field for farmers who grow non-subsidized crops, but just a bit -- perhaps not even noticeably. There would probably be a decrease in the amount of [high-fructose corn syrup] in the market, in the 10 billion animals we “process” annually, in the ethanol used to fill gas-guzzlers and in the soy from which we chemically extract oil for frying potatoes and chicken. Those are all benefits, which we could compound by taking those billions and using them for things like high-speed rail, fulfilling our promises to public workers, maintaining Pell grants for low-income college students or any other number of worthy, forward-thinking causes. ...
But let’s not kid ourselves. Although the rage for across-the-board spending cuts doesn’t extend to the public -- according to a recent Pew poll, most people want no cuts or even increased spending in major areas -- once the $5 billion is gone, it’s not coming back. ... By making the program more sensible the money could benefit us all. For example, it could:
-- Fund research and innovation in sustainable agriculture, so that in the long run we can get the system on track.
-- Provide necessary incentives to attract the 100,000 new farmers Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack claims we need.
-- Save more farmland from development.
-- Provide support for farmers who grow currently unsubsidized fruits, vegetables and beans, while providing incentives for monoculture commodity farmers to convert some of their operations to these more desirable foods.
-- Level the playing field so that medium-sized farms -- big enough to supply local supermarkets but small enough to care what and how they grow -- can become more competitive with agribusiness.
Thoughts?

I think the goals that the writer supports are mostly admirable, but that it would be better to eliminate the agricultural subsidies altogether and try to encourage better production methods and consumer dietary habits in other ways. Consumer awareness and support for healthier foods produced by sustainable methods is already growing, and will get an added boost if the other stuff is not made artificially cheap with taxpayer dollars. That's enough for me.

"Provide support for farmers who grow currently unsubsidized fruits, vegetables and beans, while providing incentives for monoculture commodity farmers to convert some of their operations to these more desirable foods."
Well that's obvious. Why do you suppose it is that a loaf of bread can be had for a dollar, yet a red pepper costs 3 bucks?

Personally, if I had to advocate for one change, it would be eliminating the encouragement of agricultural exports. This causes overproduction in the big four (corn, soy, oats, wheat) and takes the bottom out of the market in developing nations where farm production is important to their overall well-being. Of course, you would have to replace these subsidies with something else to avoid a major shock to the system, so that would probably mean going back to the 1936-1973 model of allotments and government purchase of excess production. I'm not sure it would be cheaper, but it gets us away from the worst parts of the production problem.
But who is going to advocate for this? Beneficiaries to the current system include the American consumer, Monsanto, ADM, big agribusiness-type growers, and the McDonaldses of the world. Honestly, they have a lot more clout than a vaguely organized group of back-to-the-landers and low-end organic consumers riding around on beat up bicycles. (I put myself in the second category).
The best first thing to do would be to make Mark Ritchie the agriculture secretary. The best second thing would be to pass the "300-lb kid" tax on soda and candy bars.
If we are waiting for politicians to solve the problems we face, we wait in vain; for, they are clearly representing someone besides the health and welfare of their constituents, their country, their planet.
Although I would like to see small independent farmers receive greater support than they do now, I support the complete elimination of agricultural subsidies (according to your article back some time that quoted the OECD, the value is somewhere between 20 and 100 billion depending on how you define subsidies) as well as those for gas and oil. The overwhelming majority of the direct payments are for corn, wheat, soy, cotton and rice. Wheat, soy and corn are essentially dangerous products that provide no nutritional value, undermine the health of most Americans (think obesity, heart disease, diabetes, auto-immune disease, etc.) and are used to support the worst aspects of the American diet: HFCS, factory farming, a 20:1 omega-6:omega-3 ratio, and gluten poisoning. Eliminating these items will improve the American diet, reduce (control) medical costs significantly, and stimulate the rural economy by favoring smaller farms over larger corporate farms. Any apparent increase in food costs are certainly offset by reduced expenses in health care, cost of subsidies and increase in employment. Producing good food is the most radical and anti-corporate action we can take as individuals.

I think the points you make are entirely valid, and that my own language about eliminating subsidies was overly broad. I am mainly referring to subsidizing artificially cheap production of the foods that are making us ill (like non-edible corn that is processed into HFCS), at the same time that we are trying to discourage over-consumption of the very same food products to prevent obesity and diabetes (among other diseases).
It reminds me of the tobacco subsidies continuing forward at the same time we were trying to warn the public of the health risks of cigarette smoking - just plain crazy policy.

why subsidize farmers at all? almost all that money goes to corporations, not quaint little family farms.
Finally, if our system of agriculture is so much more efficient, why does it require such a large involvement by the federal government? The point is that it is not at all efficient and so requires constant support from the taxpayers to keep from consuming itself. So if we're agreed that the government has to be involved either way, why not use government policy encourage best practices among farmers and agribusinesses?
If the grain monopolies were forced to pay farmers a fair price for their crop we wouldn't need subsidies. ADM, Cargill and Bunge are the ones benefitting from taxpayer dollars--not the farmers.