Seven years ago, U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., couldn’t find enough good things to say about the Freedom to Farm Act, a major overhaul of the nation’s farm subsidies.

The time had come, he said, to get government off agriculture’s back. Eventually, Congress agreed, putting an end to a Depression-era system of subsidy payments to farmers.

Giving farmers the freedom to decide what and how to grow was supposed to make things better.

Now, many say the Roberts-backed bill hasn’t worked, and on Thursday the U.S. House, with President Bush’s backing, approved significant increases in grain and cotton subsidies. The bill awaits Senate consideration.

For some, the 280-141 vote is a death knell for Freedom to Farm.

“We all know that Freedom to Farm didn’t work,” said U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo.

David Burress, a research economist with the Center for Economic and Business Research Analysis at Kansas University, agreed.

“Freedom to Farm is dead,” he said. “Farmers can’t make it on the free market and they haven’t for 150 years. Essentially, it’s because farmers are too good at what they do and they keep getting better, forcing each other out of business.

“It takes fewer farmers to produce the same amount of product.”

Kansas Farm Bureau, the state’s largest and oldest farm lobby, praised the House vote but declined comment about its impact on Freedom to Farm.

“We’d rather you get that from Sen. Roberts’ office,” said Farm Bureau spokesman Mike Matson.

Efforts to reach Roberts were unsuccessful.

State Rep. Dan Johnson, R-Hays, said Freedom to Farm had worked well until the late 1990s, when overseas demand for U.S. products declined.

“As long as demand stayed up, it was a good idea,” Johnson said. “But all of a sudden, demand decreased and prices hit bottom and then came Sept. 11. What you’re seeing in Washington now is a result of that.”

Johnson, a farmer and rancher, is chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.

Most farmers, he said, will welcome news of the U.S. House vote.

“Out where I live, subsidy payments make up a good portion of people’s income,” he said. “So they’ll be pleased, I expect.”

But Barry Flinchbaugh, an agricultural economics professor at Kansas State University who helped draft the Freedom to Farm laws, said he was doubtful the latest farm bill would be as generous as reported.

“They’re saying we’re going to go from a $100-billion-over-10-years baseline to $180 billion over 10 years. Now, when I do the math, that says we’re looking at $18 billion a year,” he said. “Well, let’s all be aware that in 2000 we spent $32 billion, and in 2001 we were at $26.5 billion. So to me, this certainly looks like a reduction.”

Also, Flinchbaugh said many of the Freedom to Farm principles remained unchanged in the new bill.

“The No. 1 premise of the Freedom to Farm Act is to let the farmer decide what he’s going to plant and to get him out from under the old system that was based on what he did the year before,” Flinchbaugh said. “This bill doesn’t change that, and it wasn’t changed because there’s no support for changing it.

“I don’t know how anybody could say Freedom to Farm is dead and didn’t work when that’s still in there, unchanged.”