Every two years, new members of Congress arrive on Capitol Hill portraying themselves as modern-day replicas of the famous “Mr. Smith” who went to Washington and cleaned up its crooked ways. Last month, one of these characters, Rep. David Minge, a Minnesota Democrat elected in 1992, was profiled on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. He was described as having “a single-minded focus on cutting the deficit” and was praised for possessing a “stubborn integrity” that has led him “to challenge budgetary sacred cows.” Unless, of course, these cows happen to benefit his constituents. Last week, Minge wrote an article for the Capitol Hill newspaper the Hill, in which he called for preserving one of the best examples of corporate welfare you can find: the tax break — that is, subsidy — for the ethanol industry. Minge moaned that “an elimination of this sound tax policy is short-sighted and would result in Congress revoking its commitment to American agriculture.” Actually, the federal government’s General Accounting Office recently concluded that the benefits of the ethanol tax break are minimal leaving aside the broader question of whether such federal subsidies are appropriate. . So why does a deficit hawk like Minge support the ethanol tax break? Well, corn-growers can’t get enough of this subsidy, and the most potent pressure group in his rural district is — you guessed it — the farm lobby. Hats off to Minge for attending to his local interest groups and getting praised for statesmanship in the Journal.
