LOOKING FOR WAYS TO ASSIST FARMERS AND LOWER SPENDING

There are numerous barriers that stand in the way of balancing the federal budget and, over the course of time, reducing or eliminating the national deficit. The biggest obstacle, though, is the reluctance of any beneficiaries of government spending to relinquish the largess of taxpayer-supported programs.

Take farm subsidies for example. They are up for grabs in Congress right now, and the battle lines are quickly forming. The Republicans who control Congress are facing off with the powerful leadership of farm organizations. Conservative think tanks are squaring off with farmers who produce bountiful supplies of high-quality foods and fibers.

The question for all the contenders is simple: What part of the nation's runaway spending, if any, can be checked by addressing government assistance programs for agriculture?

These programs have been around since the 1930s. In addition to direct government payouts for programs like price supports, national farm policy has also addressed overproduction with programs like paying farmers to idle nearly 50 million acres of farm land, representing some 13 percent of the total crop acres in the country.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative research organization in Washington, suggested last week that ending crop subsidies and replanting the idled acres would generate a $35 billion boost through increased export sales in a freer world market.

But the very next day President Clinton warned farmers at a National Rural Conference in Iowa that taking away the government support could hurt farm trade, because it would likely mean higher prices for American products in the world market.

And, Clinton said, farmers are currently providing one of the few bright spots in U.S. trade balances. There is a $20 billion surplus for agricultural products, he said -- a surplus that possibly could be jeopardized by tinkering with farm programs.

Rep. Bill Emerson of Cape Girardeau, R-8th District, heard similar facts and figures when he presided at a hearing on the farm bill last week in Portageville. Emerson is the vice chairman of the powerful House Agriculture Committee, and he was in his home district to listen to farmers about the possibility of cutbacks in government programs.

Charles Parker, a cotton grower from Senath, said he believed there would be "very little" money actually saved by cuts. Plus, he said, ending some programs would mean higher prices for American consumers as well as international buyers.

And Charles Kruse, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, weighed in by saying that the notion that the federal government spends too much on farm subsidies isn't accurate. Kruse said federal agriculture spending amounts to less than 1 percent of total government spending. And, he said, farm outlays by the government have already been cut in half since 1986, while overall federal spending has exploded by 50 percent.

In the end, Congress and the president will have to face up to the fact that steering the nation back to financial stability will mean making tough choices on programs like farm aid. It is clear, however, that great care will be needed in order to not upset the apple cart, both figuratively and literally.