I am going to get torched for saying this..... But to play devils advocate....
Has government programs been good for the overall ag INDUSTRY? Removing risk has led to loss of diversification and the big getting bigger. Used to be a motivated kid could work his tail off and make it by taking on marginal ground, being willing to have forty cows, feed the calves out and feed out a couple hundred pigs a year. When grain was bad, livestock carried you, when grain was good, livestock wasn't as much.... But you lessened risk by staying diversified. IMO government programs have led to fewer people owning more ground and fewer people being able to make a living off the land. The lack of (comparative risk) to what it used to be has like in all other types of business led to consolidation of control and profit. Now to lessen risk you depend on government subsidy and government subsidized crop insurance.
I know I am talking to mostly livestock producers here, that are still a LITTLE bit diversified at least, but think about how it used to be compared to now. The land owners are getting older, and there are not many younger guys coming on, and a lot of the guys that own the land don't have sons that farm, because they didn't want to stay on the farm. I see this as a very REAL problem in agriculture caused in part by government interference in risk mitigation. The phrase "too big to let fail" may not be far away from the ag industry when you look at consolidation of swine production, packing plants, and the trend of land stewards.....