Skip to content
The Farm Bill Is a Case Study in What’s Wrong With Washington

The Farm Bill Is a Case Study in What’s Wrong With Washington

Just because legislation is bipartisan doesn’t make it good.
Scott Lincicome /
Sugar beet farming
A conveyor belt carries sugar beets to a pile at a farm in Wellington, Colorado. (Photo by RJ Sangosti/The Denver Post/Getty Images)

Dear Capitolisters,

As many conservatives and libertarians know all too well, “bipartisanship” is one of the most annoyingly misunderstood concepts in American politics and media. Yes, sure, it’s fine and good when Congress approves a good bill with lots of votes from both major political parties, but good law can get made via party-line votes and bad legislation can sail quickly through the legislative process with nary a peep of opposition. Indeed, some of the worst laws on the books were enacted with lots of R and D votes, and—frustratingly—with advocates using that bipartisanship as a useful shield against legitimate criticism. 

There’s perhaps no better example of this kind of bipartisanship—the bad kind—than the farm bill, which Congress is again considering (as it does every five years) and will almost surely pass later this year with overwhelming bipartisan support. On its face, the farm bill is a sprawling, $1 trillion piece of legislation ostensibly about U.S. agriculture policy; but it’s really about a lot more than that—and it’s a testament to how bad policy gets made in Washington, too often accompanied by a harmonious chorus of happy Republicans and Democrats.

What’s in the Farm Bill?

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) provides a good summary of the farm bill’s quinquennial renewal process and content. As you can see from the following table on what was in the 2018 law, it covers a lot:

Scott Lincicome is the author of the Capitolism newsletter, vice president of general economics and trade at the Cato Institute, and a visiting lecturer at Duke University Law School.

Newsletter selected

Click sign up to start receiving your newsletters.

Please note that we at The Dispatch hold ourselves, our work, and our commenters to a higher standard than other places on the internet. We welcome comments that foster genuine debate or discussion—including comments critical of us or our work—but responses that include ad hominem attacks on fellow Dispatch members or are intended to stoke fear and anger may be moderated.

With your membership, you only have the ability to comment on The Morning Dispatch articles. Consider upgrading to join the conversation everywhere.

More We Think You’d Like

Newsletter selected

Click sign up to start receiving your newsletters.