The Farm Bill passed last week by the House, in addition to continuing our wrong-headed policy of subsidizing agriculture, contained a tax increase of between $6 billion and $8 billion on the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations. That increases consumer prices, puts hundreds of thousands of American non-ag jobs in greater jeopardy, and possibly increases the number of workers receiving public assistance. (Is it too cheeky to call that a “win-win-win” for the Left?) We have picked over Rep. Jeff Fortenberry’s vote on this bill, but far more surprising is that of his neighbor, freshman Rep. Adrian Smith (R., Neb). Everyone knew that Smith would back some version of the Farm Bill, but he just didn’t seem like the tax-hike type. Smith was a huge conservative upgrade over his predecessor, Rep. Tom Osborne (R). He had clearly been the most conservative candidate in last year’s open three-way primary in Nebraska’s western-most district, and he received significant backing from pro-lifers and low-tax conservatives. T he Club for Growth was by far his biggest ally in 2006, bundling some $400,000 in contributions for him (about one-third of Smith’s total raised) and spending $92,000 in independent expenditures on his behalf. That is a lot of money for one group to spend on a race in rural Nebraska. With his vote in favor of the tax-hiking Farm Bill, the conservative candidate funded by pro-growth, pro-f ree-market donors in 2006 has become a tax-pledge-breaker already in his first term. Smith at least voiced public regret over the tax increase and voted to strip it out before supporting final passage of the bill. But can he get away with telling voters that he voted against the tax-hike before he voted for it? There’s often a political price to pay for compromising on core principles.