ACCORDING to America's Census Bureau, fewer than 1m Americans are farmers, considerably less than 1% of the workforce. But the farm lobby looks as strong as ever. So far it is once again winning its fight to maintain the billions in annual subsidies that the federal government showers on American agriculture.

For most Americans—and, indeed, for most members of Congress—federal farm-policy is a complicated and dull distraction from bigger issues. Farm bills are usually left to a small cabal of lawmakers whose passion for preserving subsidies far outweighs others' passion for eliminating them. This year debates over Iraq and health care have pushed agricultural matters well down the list of priorities.

Back in the spring, agricultural reform looked possible. Taxpayers' lobbies, environmental groups and government watchdogs had aligned to oppose America's complicated and inefficient system of farm payments. The Democrats had taken control of Congress, promising to cut wasteful spending. Demand for ethanol had pushed corn and soyabean prices to record peaks, and farm incomes were generally high. Arguments that rich farmers needed government aid were even less credible than usual.

However, as the Senate prepares to debate its farm bill next week, prospects for change again look dim. The House of Representatives has already passed a bill preserving most subsidies, but throwing soothing sops to opponents in the form of help for biofuels and conservation. On October 25th a Senate committee approved a draft that would leave subsidies more or less as they are for another five years.

According to a database compiled by the Environmental Working Group, a whopping $165 billion went on farm payments between 1995 and 2005. But 73% of that went to 10% of recipients. Half went to only eight states. American farmers, meanwhile, are hardly struggling. The Department of Agriculture projects that the average farm household's income this year will be $87,000.

In 2005 a quarter of subsidies came in the form of “direct payments”, which go to landowners regardless of what they farm, how much they farm or if they farm at all. These payments, originally designed to wean farmers off subsidies, have stuck around, along with the subsidies they were meant to replace.

The Senate committee made a nod to reform by declaring those who make more than $750,000 a year ineligible for this largesse—but only as long as two-thirds of that income does not come from farming. The federal government, then, will continue to hand billions to profitable farmers and many others under the bill. An amendment from Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, proposed slashing direct payments in order to finance other priorities such as food stamps. But it failed miserably in the committee, which is filled with the farm lobby's friends.

Now the bill moves to the Senate floor, where it should encounter more resistance. Mr Lugar plans to introduce a more ambitious amendment there, which would eliminate the worst of the subsidies and replace them with government-run insurance for farm incomes. It would also apply to farmers of all crops in the country, unlike the current array of subsidies, which mostly benefit “commodity crops” such as wheat, corn and soyabeans. The substantial money saved would go into conservation funds, nutrition programmes and debt reduction. And lobbyists would have a harder time defending the existing system as a safety net for disaster-prone American farmers.

The prospects for the amendment are not good in the Senate, where rural states are over-represented. Even so, reformers can take some heart from a couple of hopeful signs. Debate in the Senate is likely to take longer than it did in the House, giving Mr Lugar and his allies more time to sell their proposal. Other, more modest, amendments will also come up, including one to limit the size of payments. Also, George Bush and his acting agriculture secretary have hinted that they will oppose the bill. A presidential veto might blow the farm debate wide open.