Let's say, purely for the sake of argument, that Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel has not, in fact, agreed at this point to infuse the agriculture reserve fund with four billion dollars or so--the essential grease everyone says is needed to pass Chairman Peterson's bill through his own committee and the House floor. Because if the money isn't really there, a budget point of order can be raised on any item that violates pay-go rules. So the Rules Committee would be unwilling to approve the measure for the floor.

Now what if Mr. Rangel actually wants to see what Mr. Peterson's final bill looks like before he decides how much to provide? Isn't that reasonable? And what if, once he reviews it, he's unhappy--and hears from his fellow Ways and Means committee member, Ron Kind, that the bill does not represent acceptable reform--or worse, is in some important respects actually retrograde?

What if, as a result of his review, Chairman Rangel decides he'd like some changes himself --like asking for more cost-saving reforms in crop subsidies to large, wealthy farm businesses--before finding the money to get it passed, money that could be spent on lots of other pressing, politically hot priorities (like insurance coverage for poor kids)?

The much-discussed $4 billion Mr. Rangel has reportedly agreed to provide is being described by ag committee sources and some farm policy pundits as money dedicated to a food stamp program increase.

But in the big picture, of course, the crop subsidy lobby was taken care of with real money by the ag committee, while the food stamp program increase was dropped entirely into Mr. Rangel's lap.

If the agriculture committee's bill looks like it is far too generous to the subsidy lobby, won't Mr. Rangel be put in the position of enabling a multi-billion dollar giveaway? For instance, won't a giveaway of windfall, automatic direct payments to farmers, worth over $5.1 billion per year look bad for Democrats? What about payment limitation 'reforms' that turn out to be meaningless in curbing taxpayer funds for the biggest, wealthiest subsidized farm businesses in the country?

And if Mr. Rangel resists the role of enabler, will the subsidy lobby try to blame him for "bringing down the farm bill" or for "failing to fund" a food stamp increase? Will the Democratic caucus buy that?

The important thing about all of these questions is that they be classified as "hypothetical." Because once a question has been put in the 'hypotethical' category in Washington, no one expects an answer. And when someone in Washington refuses to answer a hypothetical, see if they don't work the word "frankly" into it.

Well here's my answer, Beltway conventions be damned:

EWG does not comment on hypotheticals.

But if we did comment, frankly, we'd say that if there's one member of the House of Representatives who's no fall guy, it's Charlie Rangel.