Expecting More, Committing Less 9 Notwithstanding USDA’s politically correct mission statement,
there are programs within the department working at cross purposes.
One program administers subsidies that favor diets steeped in calories
from processed grains, sugar, and fat—while another provides dietary
guidelines that promote a healthy diet from nutritious food. To straddle
the divide, words like nutrition are featured instead of calories. In recent
farm bills, provisions that provide easier access to diets rich in subsidized
calories are titled “Nutrition Assistance Programs.”
Some contend that USDA has run amuck. But this “people’s depart-
ment” takes its marching orders from presidents and Congress, both
of which leverage USDA programs to amass political capital. People
commonly believe that lobbyists pursue senators and representatives
with enticements of campaign contributions. But the reality is more
sinister—members of Congress have become telemarketers “dialing
for dollars.” Soliciting money is their top priority, not just to finance
campaigns but to gain stature with party leaders.
Part of the payoff from fundraising is being appointed to committees
offering greater exposure. Among the favorites is the Committee on
Agriculture with its wide array of interest groups vying for inclusion
within omnibus farm bills. These committees (in both the House and
the Senate) can debate why permanent legislation for agriculture is still
needed... or they can deliberate about which interest groups deserve
funding. The result is always the latter. No matter which groups find
their interests rewarded in the final bill, politicians adeptly use the
language of shared interests—“the American people,” “family farms,”
“affordable food,” “consumers everywhere”—to justify their votes.
Special interests and politicians do not stop with the buying and sell-
ing of influence. Another common practice is to install their people in
senior staff positions on House or Senate committees where legislation
is written. Yet another is executive service appointments, by the party
in power, in departments like USDA or the Food and Drug Adminis-
tration (FDA). High-level political appointees, sandwiched between
elected politicians and career employees, wield significant sway to set
new agendas or derail existing programs. Among all federal depart-
ments and agencies, USDA has the fourth-highest number of political
slots, with 220 such positions—only nine fewer than the Department of
Defense. Lastly, businesses and trade associations serve as gatekeepers