BIG AG. If you�re looking for some stereotypical Washington absurdity, I recommend spending time with the House Agricultural Committee, which will be taking up reauthorization of the mammoth Farm Bill this year. In the space of two hours of discussion on proposals, I heard at least five jokes about how flat Kansas is. I also saw a man in a sunflower tie -- I assume that he was from the Sunflower Commission -- and a man with horseshoe cufflinks and a pink horse tie to match. Dressing the part and all that. Their politics are, alas, no better than their fashion sense: these are men who unanimously object to lowering the maximum income eligibility for subsidy payments to $200,000 (in their words, a �drastically� dangerous cut from the existing $2.5 million cap). The meeting started off with a pleasant acknowledgment of how little had changed since Democrats assumed control of the committee in January. And then one by one, the lobbyists made their arguments for increases in subsidy payments, as opposed to the USDA�s proposed cuts. (The committee is disproportionately made up of congressmen -- of both parties -- from subsidy-heavy districts.) But if anything underscored the deferential treatment accorded to Big Ag, it was the request that the panel describe any arguments that might be made against the lobbyists' suggestions, should they exist. Any one of the representatives on the committee could have made those opposing points themselves, had they chosen to read the reform-minded literature that sat, untouched, on an info table outside.
--Alina Hoffman
