A question about farm subsidies at last night’s Republican presidential debate gave the candidates an opportunity to talk candidly about the problems with America’s agriculture policies. Instead, with an eye on Iowa, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani said they support the status quo.

It was one of the worst cases of political pandering I’ve seen in the campaign. The Club for Growth was right to hit Romney and Giuliani for their position on farm subsidies in the context of both candidates’ “strong rhetoric in favor of protecting American taxpayers and promoting limited government.”

My Heritage Foundation colleagues Brian Riedl and Ron Utt have been writing about the problems with farm subsidies for years. Utt’s most recent contribution examined how members of Congress (and their families) benefit from these programs. Riedl spelled out four specific problems with farm subsidies:

• Farm subsidies are intended to alleviate farmer poverty, but the majority of subsidies go to com­mercial farms with average incomes of $200,000 and net worths of nearly $2 million.

• Farm subsidies are intended to raise farmer incomes by remedying low crop prices. Instead, they promote overproduction and therefore lower prices further.

• Farm subsidies are intended to help struggling family farmers. Instead, they harm them by exclud­ing them from most subsidies, financing the con­solidation of family farms, and raising land values to levels that prevent young people from entering farming.

• Farm subsidies are intended to be consumer-friendly and taxpayer-friendly. Instead, they cost Americans billions each year in higher taxes and higher food costs.

If conservatives can’t get the Republican candidates to commit to solving these problems now, what on earth are we supposed to expect if they’re actually elected?

UPDATE — Nov. 30, 7:10 p.m.: Philip Klein of the American Spectator wonders why Giuliani passed up an opportunity to win over fiscal conservatives when New Hampshire is more important than Iowa to his electoral strategy?