Contrary to a statement he gave to the Des Moines Register a few weeks ago, Tom Vilsack will indeed be appointed Secretary of Agriculture. As I've argued before, the pick is not necessarily comforting. Vilsack is the former governor of Iowa. Iowa is the nation's largest producer of corn, soybeans, and pork. As such, the state's second most important export is corn, followed by soybeans, followed by meat (interestingly, Iowa's most important export is tractors). Vilsack's agricultural experience has been as an advocate for those industries and a politician dependent on their favor. Appointing him to head the agency is like appointing the governor of a petrostate to head the Department of Energy. The pick may turn out for the best, but there's little evidence of that in the official record. Much is made, for instance, of the fact that Vilsack has shown flashes of real courage on climate change. His energy plan, in particular, sought a 75 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, and envisioned mandating carbon-free power plants by 2020 in order to reach that goal. But it still contained provisions for radically enlarging the role of ethanol in our energy mix -- though that included cellulosic ethanol -- and in interviews, wasn't willing to say that we could transition away from corn ethanol by midcentury. That said, the upside is that Vilsack knows these issues, knows the relevant lobbies, and if tasked with carrying out a saner subsidy policy, could draw on extensive experience navigating the relevant constituencies. At the end of the day, though, Vilsack is arguably less the problem than his agency. In 1862, when the Department of Agriculture was founded, agriculture composed 82 percent of American exports. America had three times as many farms as it does now -- and those farms were far more labor intensive, in a country that had one-third the population. Agriculture, in other words, was the main export and one of the nation's largest employment sectors. You needed a Department of Agriculture. Today, agricultural exports make up 8 percent of the total. Agricultural industry employs a tiny fraction of Americans and is dominated by a few large producers. It is an interest group that has attained cabinet status. That it would be headed by a governor from a state whose reliance on agricultural exports makes it a throwback to the days when the agency had a more obvious claim to existence makes sense. What doesn't make sense is why you'd have a Department of Agriculture rather than, say, a Department of Food. Related: Vilsack describes his vision for the position. VILSACK TO BE NAMED SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.
Contrary to a statement he gave to the Des Moines Register a few weeks ago, Tom Vilsack will indeed be appointed Secretary of Agriculture. As I've argued before, the pick is not necessarily comforting. Vilsack is the former governor of Iowa. Iowa is the nation's largest producer of corn, soybeans, and pork. As such, the state's second most important export is corn, followed by soybeans, followed by meat (interestingly, Iowa's most important export is tractors). Vilsack's agricultural experience has been as an advocate for those industries and a politician dependent on their favor. Appointing him to head the agency is like appointing the governor of a petrostate to head the Department of Energy. The pick may turn out for the best, but there's little evidence of that in the official record. Much is made, for instance, of the fact that Vilsack has shown flashes of real courage on climate change. His energy plan, in particular, sought a 75 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, and envisioned mandating carbon-free power plants by 2020 in order to reach that goal. But it still contained provisions for radically enlarging the role of ethanol in our energy mix -- though that included cellulosic ethanol -- and in interviews, wasn't willing to say that we could transition away from corn ethanol by midcentury. That said, the upside is that Vilsack knows these issues, knows the relevant lobbies, and if tasked with carrying out a saner subsidy policy, could draw on extensive experience navigating the relevant constituencies. At the end of the day, though, Vilsack is arguably less the problem than his agency. In 1862, when the Department of Agriculture was founded, agriculture composed 82 percent of American exports. America had three times as many farms as it does now -- and those farms were far more labor intensive, in a country that had one-third the population. Agriculture, in other words, was the main export and one of the nation's largest employment sectors. You needed a Department of Agriculture. Today, agricultural exports make up 8 percent of the total. Agricultural industry employs a tiny fraction of Americans and is dominated by a few large producers. It is an interest group that has attained cabinet status. That it would be headed by a governor from a state whose reliance on agricultural exports makes it a throwback to the days when the agency had a more obvious claim to existence makes sense. What doesn't make sense is why you'd have a Department of Agriculture rather than, say, a Department of Food. Related: Vilsack describes his vision for the position. 
