Porkulousity: Agricultural Version

TW: One of the big holes in western liberal democracies is the disproportionate power held by rural populations. The hole is created by geographically based representative bodies like the U.S. Senate. Porportioning power geographically instead of via population has its advantages for sure (the flipside of the geographically based system is population based systems which can be corrupted by big city politicans with their machines powered by pliant ethnic voting blocs) but it creates a constant challenge- agricultural interests rule (frequently co-opted by big Ag as opposed to the beloved if somewhat mystical "family farmer"). Other countries have the same issue which is why Japanese and Korean rice is so expensive and French and German milk so precious.

Agricultural interests are second to none at delivering pork to themselves. Their constituents may rail against "big government" but woe is the agricultural state rep or senator who does not "bring home the bacon".

From Economist:
"Many people have complained during the recession that too much authority has been concentrated in the executive and the Federal Reserve. They have a point, but the problem seems to be that the legislative branch of government has become entirely dysfunctional. What's more, it appears to be beyond reform. Ezra Klein is proposing some committee reforms that will never happen, but it's worth reading the logic behind the argument:

The problem with the agricultural committees, however, can be summed up in a single question: Why would you, as a young member of Congress, choose to sit on them?Everyone I have posed this question to -- and that includes members of Congress-- has given me the same answer: You are from a district or state that is reliant on the agricultural industry and you want to serve your constituents to ensure your reelection (very few members are motivated by a genuine affection for handouts to Big Ag). "Serve your constituents," in this context, means something pretty close to "secure large taxpayer subsidies for their products." Put differently, it means "rip off the rest of the country."

And that, of course, is exactly what we've done. Between 1995 and 2006, we've spent $177.6 billion subsidizing agriculture. About $50 billion of that has gone to corn (is it any surprise that the Senate Agricultural Committee is chaired by an Iowan?). Nor is this a progressive scheme: The top 10 percent of subsidy recipients averaged $36,000 a year in government money. The bottom 80 percent got less than $800.

Wise people will note that generous and foolish agricultural subsidies aren't exactly a uniquely American tradition. Still, the notion that multiple legislative committees are basically pork factories, and no one cares is kind of troubling."