Freshmen members of Congress represent lots of farmers — but most of them do not grow corn.

But, the Washington Post perpetuated some long-held myths by presuming that Congressional leaders are worried that farm and food policy reforms will hurt freshmen legislators representing corn and soybean farmers.

In fact, many more freshmen members of Congress represent fruit and vegetable producers than represent the producers of subsidized crops.

In particular, districts represented by Reps. McNerney (D-CA), Mahoney (D-FL), Giffords (D-AZ), McCarthy (R-CA), Sali (R-ID), Kagan (D-WI), Carney (D-PA), Arcuri (D-NY), Hall (D-NY), Gillbrand (D-NY), Sestak (D-PA), Murphy (D-PA), Heller (R-NV), Buchanan (R-FL), Shuler (D-NC), Welch (D-VT), Hodes (D-NH), Shea-Porter (D-NH) and others are dominated by farmers who do not grow subsidized crops but are seeking a larger share of federal farm spending pie.

In fact, as the Ruminant reported, farmers represented by 36 of 55 freshmen members of the House would be better served if Congress cut subsidies to help pay for conservation programs. In addition, farmers in 12 districts would see little or no change.

Farmers in only seven districts in Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana would receive modestly less federal support if Congress cut "direct" payments to share the cost of clean water — mostly corn and soybean farmers who have seen farm prices double in recent years in response to the ethanol mandate.

The Post points to Rep. Zack Space, who represents part of eastern Ohio, as an example of a Congressman who may pay a political price for subsidy reform. Certainly, Space thinks that his farmers are happy with the status quo.

But, not all of his Rep. Space's farmers are well served by farm subsidies that flow to a handful of larger commercial farmers.

Most of the farmers in eastern Ohio do not crops that are eligible for costly, depression-era subsidies. Most of his farmers grow fruits and vegetables, raise livestock, or produce trees. There are certainly corn and bean farmers, but most collect about $70 a month in direct payments.

Of course, a few very large commercial farmers in Ohio's 18th district collect almost $3,000 a month in direct payments - driving up the price of land and squeezing their smaller neighbors out of business.

Those must be farmers Space considers "generally satisifed."

Here's the thing: cutting direct payment to fund voluntary USDA conservation programs would actually help more farmers and bring more resources to the 18th district. Cutting direct payments by $10 billion over five years, for example, would increase farm spending by almost $5 million in Space's district and allow many more farmers to participate in conservation programs like EQIP.

But, such cuts — which could be achieved through reasonable payment limits — would reduce direct payments for the very large, very successful commercial farmers who just saw their profits double and who, according to Space, are "generally satisfied."

Most of the farmers represented by Jerry McNerney, Heath Shuler and Tim Mahoney are generally "not satisfied."

Farmers in their districts do not grow subsidized crops — they take their cues from the marker, not from the government — but they do want more support USDA, including more funds for research, rural development and conservation.

In combination, all of the farmers represented by Tim Mahoney — whose central Florida district is dominated by fruit and vegetable producers — collected about $380,000 between 2003 and 2005.

A single farmer in Space's district collected almost as much during the same period.

Taken together, farmers in Space's district collected more than $52 million between 2003 and 2005. No wonder they are satisfied.

The Ruminant knows that congressional leaders are as worried about freshmen like Mahoney, McNerney and Shuler as they are about Space.

But, we worry that leaders will forget that fruit and vegetable farmers represent half of agriculture — and dominate the districts represented by freshmen.

We also worry that leaders will forget that rural voters overwhelmingly support reasonable subsidy reforms like payment limits and that rural voters are for more concerned about America's hunger, health, energy, and environmental challenges than they are about a few very large "satisfied" farmers.