In Iowa land costs as much as $150.00/acre per year to rent. I guarantee that the cattle ranchers in Idaho and Montana arn't paying that.

(Granted the land probably isn't worth 150.00/acre let alone paying that on a per year basis.)

But why should an Iowa farmer, who receives little or no subsidy and farms his own ground (that he paid $1,000-$2,000/acre for) or rented land (that he pays $100-$200/acre rent) be forced to compete with grain grown on irrigated high deserts of some western state where that grain crop couldn't be grown without the government supplying the land, water, and other subsidies.

The subsidies lead to higher production where it is not needed which leads to lower prices which increases the calls for more subsidies.

I understand that you can't kill the programs overnight: To do so would destroy the economy...But do we really need to keep expanding the programs?

Scott