MN-02 : Should the Ryan Budget Save the Kline Family Farm ?

John Kline (R-MN-02) issued a press release in advance of his vote in favor of the Paul Ryan (R-WI-01) FY 2012 budget :

“ … hundreds of Minnesotans shared with me their thoughts about better ways to encourage job creation and foster long-term economic growth. The overwhelming majority of constituents told me they have no choice but to make the difficult decisions to guide their families and small businesses through difficult economic times, and they expect Washington to do the same.
This week Congress will vote on a responsible, restrained budget that will help America’s job creators put our nation back to work and secure America’s future by stopping Washington from spending money it doesn’t have. Our budget will cut $6.2 trillion in government spending over the next decade compared to the President’s budget, and $5.8 trillion relative to the current baseline. It also preserves benefits for today’s seniors while strengthening the safety net for our children and grandchildren.”

Already many have focused on the cuts that the Kline / Ryan budget will impact on Medicare and other entitlement programs … yet there has been little discussion about the 33% reduction in outlays for Education (Section 500 of the budget) from FY 2012 to FY 2013 … which would be one that Mr. Kline should be most interested as the Chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee.
Heck, Mr. Kline as Chairman of Education Committee is promoting cuts to Head Start (FY 2012 Budget (GOP Budget) that would have a national impact
• 218,000 low-income children and families would be removed from Head Start.
• 16,000 Head Start and Early Head Start classrooms would close.
• 55,000 teachers and related staff would lose their jobs.
• 170,000 families trying to find jobs or stay employed would lose childcare)
In Minnesota, every county would be affected … as Minnesota’s 35 federally designated Head Start grantees served 16,018 families in 2010.
And Head Start has a proven track record exhibited by :
192% Increase in Language Development
362% Increase in Emerging Literacy
288% Increase in Social Emotional Development
173% Increase in Physical Health and Wellbeing

But this commentary, is not about Education funding or any of the other proposed cuts … but instead what Mr. Ryan and Mr. Kline have protected --- Farm Subsidies.

American taxpayers paid roughly $15 billion in total farm subsidies last year, according to government data including $5 billion in direct payments to farmers accounts. With the farm sector booming—the USDA estimates net farm income this year will be the second-highest in 35 years—direct payments should become an easy target. Iowa State University economist Chad Hart noted that the payments go to farmers regardless of crop price or quality. Most of the payments go to the largest farmers in America given the amount of land they own. From 2002, when the program was expanded, through 2010, the top 10% of recipients received 67% of the funds, according to David DeGennaro, an Environmental Working Group legislative analyst. Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union, said the direct subsidies have become indefensible because they don't go to farmers who need them to survive tough times.
Prominent Republicans like Senator Susan Collins (ME) view America’s fiscal problem and offer a solution… “I support the elimination of the ethanol subsidy — that’s worth some $6 billion a year.” Senator Collins added “I think we should cap farm subsidies for wealthy corporate farmers.”
Senator Collins was joined by Chris Coons (D-DE), Jeanne Shaheen (D-VT), Mark Warner (D-VA), Bob Corker (R-TN), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-CT), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), John McCain (R-AZ), Jim Webb (D-VA), Bob Bennet (R-UT), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Mike Enzi (R-ID), Jack Reed (D-RI), Richard Burr (R-NC), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) in signing a letter to end the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit.

Targeting farm subsidies is not new … The CATO Institute lists 10 reasons while The Heritage Foundation complains that it subsidies millionaires. Heck, the New York Times editorialized that cutting farm subsidies was an easy one.

In summary, there are a significant number of elected Republican and Democrat leaders, think tanks and newspapers that all embrace the concept of terminating farm subsidies.

Yet, Republican House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-WI-01) blueprint for the fiscal 2012 budget contained a paltry $3 billion per year over the next decade— leaving $120 billion in total expected spending on farm subsidies. Compare that to the outlay for Education which will be cut $23 billion in just FY2013 alone.

So, why would Mr. Kline and Mr. Ryan not raise the ante … that’s a great question … the answer is unknown … but what is known is that Mr. Kline’s Family Farm participates in accepting federal subsidies.

Yes, Mr. Kline the taxpayers expect you to make “the difficult decisions” in these “difficult economic times” but when one group is enjoying a banner year, we don’t expect you to continue to participate in receiving federal subsidies … we expect you to stop reckless Washington spending that benefits to a numerically small but highly motivated group who will fight ferociously to safeguard their benefits ... or as they are also known - your family, friends and supporters.

MN-02 : Kline Willing to Risk 3M Jobs to Cut Corporate Welfare ?

Timing is everything in politics.

An issue can be ignored until it’s time to be used to make political hay.

Some would say that the Republican current fixation with deficit spending is an issue whose “timing” will help this November.

So it is that when John Kline posted on his website : Congressman John Kline is inviting Minnesotans to help Washington end its addiction to wasteful spending, that I was not surprised. I expected to see the typical stuff that he likes to talk about … like an earmark added to the 2006 Appropriations Bill (HR 3058) for the Sparta Teapot Museum in North Carolina. But NO, Mr. Kline actually asked about ending a program that is more Corporate Welfare than a Congressman bringing “home the bacon.”

Of the four choices, the biggest dollar program with a projected savings of $2 Billion is : “Eliminate funding for a green government project that the private sector is already leading: The “FreedomCAR” and fuel partnership program is a duplicative program already being implemented by the private sector.”

FreedomCAR ? Hmmmm… I will bet that you never heard of the FreedomCAR, but since Freedom is in the name, somehow you are probably thinking that this is a Republican-themed program. The C-A-R in FreedomCAR is an acronym for Cooperative Automotive Research, but what’s the Freedom … simple … to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and the foreign dictators that reap monies off our dependence. A goal that every American can agree with … and also agree that we have a long way to go to get there.

The program was created during John Kline’s first term in Congress … that’s when the Republicans controlled the House and George Bush announced the program in his 2003 State of the Union address. Funny, how we forgot about that … but now, the “timing” has a Democrat in the White House and Democrats controlling the House.
Yes, “timing” is everything … especially since President Obama just drove Chevrolet Volt during his tour of the Detroit-Hamtramck assembly plant last week.

This program subsidizes research by major automakers for developing their own versions of hybrid, plug-in hybrid (PHEV), and fuel cell vehicles. The subsidies also fund private R&D of light- weight materials, electronic power control, and electric drive motors.

One of the main components in these plug-in hybrid vehicles is the battery … since PHEVs have the potential to displace a large amount of gasoline by delivering up to 40 miles of electric range without recharging— new batteries would have to be developed. The Department of Energy awarded 3M in Saint Paul up to $1.14 million (total DOE/industry cost share: $ 2.28 million) over two years to screen nickel/manganese/cobalt (NMC) cathode materials through building and testing of small-sized cells.

I do not know the status of 3M’s project, nor how many jobs were created or retained, but the objective sure sounds reasonable.

Working with corporate interests is not new … when President Bush gave monies to the auto industry, he said : “In the midst of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action." The monies for this came from the TARP legislation that John Kline voted for. Ah, “timing” is everything … while President Obama’s so-called bailout of the GM and Chrysler is now getting repaid, the Bush monies will never be returned.


What seems odd though is the “timing” and what project Mr. Kline included in his choices.

Ending Corporate Welfare is fiscally responsible. Yet, this project is one that may take government incentives from our goal of being energy independent.

The question is why did Mr. Kline and the Republicans pick the FreedomCAR project and not some other Corporate Welfare programs.

The term “Corporate Welfare” actually has many components.

How about ethanol subsidies which cost the US Treasury $6 billion in 2009 ?
Ethanol subsidies are just the tip of the money tree. "Farm subsidies are America's largest corporate welfare program," said Brian Riedl, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation. The question is why federal money flows primarily to growers of five crops—corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton and rice—while livestock, poultry and produce farmers get by without subsidy checks? After the media reported that at least 2,702 millionaires received farm payments from 2003 to 2006 (including such hobby-farmers as Scottie Pippin of the NBA fame and a number of family members of Congress including Minnesota’s Michele Bachmann (R-MN-06), the 2008 Farm bill prohibited all subsidies to anyone whose non-farm adjusted gross income exceeds $500,000. The Obama administration said its proposed farm subsidy cuts would save $2.3 billion over 10 years. Its new budget proposal would lower the cap on direct payments from $40,000 per person per year to $30,000. It would also reduce income eligibility limits over three years to $250,000 for non-farm adjusted gross income.

As easy to see Corporate Welfare in the Ag sector, there is a larger sector that is prone to largesse … and that’s is processed by a House Committee that Mr. Kline sits … The House Armed Forces Committee. Interestingly, Mr. Kline makes the argument the FreedomCAR program is a “duplicative program.” Hmmm. Why is Mr. Kline supportive of General Electric’s request for $1.8 - $2.9 billion required for an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter ? In essence, a “duplicative program.”

GE claims that its alternate engine will enable the government to have cost-saving competitions across the lifetime of the F-35 program, saving taxpayers billions of dollars. What it leaves out of its talking points is that the government would first have to pay for two production lines, two supply chains and two workforces to build the competing engines, and then split the annual buys between two teams in a way that would eliminate any economies of scale. Once fielded, the two engines would require separate sets of spare parts, separate maintenance procedures, and other redundant items that would increase rather than decrease the cost of operating the plane. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) during debate about whether to fund the alternate engine expressed concerns about having two redundant engines would increase the complexity of the program, potentially undercutting both affordability and readiness.

Lockheed chairman Robert Stevens has stated that the company expects the actual purchase price of each Air Force F-35 variant will be roughly the same as a current Lockheed F-16 or Boeing F/A-18. That would be about $60 million in today's dollars -- less than half the price of an F-22 Raptor -- and it includes all the necessary mission equipment. Remember that Mr. Kline supported an “earmark” to procure additional F-22 that the Pentagon does not want …. Oh, and the alternate engine was not requested by President Bush or President Obama or the DOD … it’s just Corporate Welfare being funded by Mr. Kline and his friends in Congress.


“Timing” is everything in politics … and this “Timing” reeks of a political stunt.
Cutting Corporate Welfare for the FreedomCAR maybe short-sighted. Developing the technology required to ween ourselves from foreign produced oil, will require decades of trial and error in which a variety of bridge technologies are phased in over time.
Cutting FreedomCAR funding may sound good for political purposes but not be a good strategic decision.

MN-02 : Kline - Penny UnWise, Pounds Foolish

Adage : "If you're not part of the solution, you must be part of the problem."

Major General Paul Monroe was called to testify before John Kline (R-MN-02) and the House Education and Labor Committee last week.
Major General Monroe was testifying on behalf of over 130 other retired generals, admirals and senior military leaders in calling on Congress to address an issue that “threatens to diminish our military strength and put our national security interests at risk. ”
In very compelling testimony, the situation was outlined :
--- At least 9 million young adults, or 27 percent of all young Americans ages 17 to 24, are too overweight to enlist. Since 1995, the proportion of candidates who failed their physical exams due to weight problems increased by a staggering 70 percent.
-- Every year, the military discharges over 1,200 first-term enlistees before their contracts are up because of weight problems; the military must then recruit and train their replacements at a cost of $50,000 for each man or woman, thus spending more than $60 million a year.
-- The journal Health Affairs reports that 80 percent of children who were overweight at ages 10-15 were obese at age 25.

Supporting these comments, former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Army Generals John M. Shalikashvili and Hugh Shelton wrote : “Our school districts need the resources to offer our children more vegetables, fruits and whole grains as well as products with less sugar, sodium, fat and calories in school cafeterias and vending machines. Yes, this will mean increasing funding for child nutrition programs. But with our nation spending at least $75 billion a year on medical expenses related to obesity, we think these steps will pay off over the long term.”

The legislation in question is H.R.5504, the Improving Nutrition for America’s Children Act which is being crafted by Mr. Kline’s committee with Representative Todd Russell Platts (R-PA), ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities stating : “Given the serious fiscal challenges facing our country, we must ensure that we devote our limited resources to our nation's most urgent priorities. Providing nutritious meals and improving health standards for our nation's children, especially those most in need, are such priorities. I am pleased to join with Chairman George Miller and Chairwoman Carolyn McCarthy in sponsoring this important legislation."

However, Mr. Kline statement is less than accepting of the military’s plea : “We stand ready on this side of the aisle to reauthorize the programs and improve their effectiveness and efficiency.
What has given us pause, however, is the $8 billion price tag attached to this bill.
[SNIP]
But I hope we do not allow an important discussion about nutritional science and wellness policy reporting to detract from our larger obligation to prevent hunger and improve child nutrition responsibly.”
Mr. Kline is once again offering lip service … his job is to offer solutions … but instead he’s being an obstructionist.

First, this is not a free lunch … it will cost money … as it did when it was created as the National School Lunch Act of 1946. Then it was passed as a matter of national security – the military’s concern then was that malnourishment would render American youth unfit to defend the nation.
Mr. Kline’s using the $8 billion price tag does not acknowledge that it is actually over a ten year period, so that is $800 million a year. If $75 billion is spent on medical expenses related to obesity, then spending less than a billion should be a good preventative …sorta wisely spending a Penny today so that a Pound will not be needed tomorrow.

But if the Mr. Kline wants to find $800 million to offset it that should not really be a problem.
Here’s some suggestions.
--- Reduce payments in the Conservation Reserve Program or CRP. Few people outside of the farm belt have heard of this program, but for 25 years, CRP has been the backbone of the government’s welfare system for farmers. The program pays agriculture producers to take highly erosion-able lands out of production and plant it to some kind of cover vegetation—usually grass. The program currently covers 36 million acres or about 8 percent of all cropland.
Farmers elect to enroll in the program which pays a rental fee that averages about $50 an acre. Farmers typically sign 10 year contracts promising not to farm or even graze such lands. In 2007 the federal government paid $1.9 billion dollars to farmers and ranchers under this program -- something they should be doing anyway—which is to avoid farming highly erodible lands.

--- As Brian M. Riedl, of the Heritage Foundation wrote : “Lawmakers who are serious about fiscal restraint should consider farm subsidies one of the most justifiable places to find savings. These corporate welfare programs enrich agribusinesses and other non-farmers at the expense of family farmers, the farm economy, and taxpayers.”
Eligibility for farm subsidies is determined by crop, not by income or poverty standards. A glance at those who received farm subsidies in 2002 shows that many of them do not need federal dollars. Farm program benefits are highly concentrated in the hands of a small minority of subsidized individuals and operations, with the top 1 percent of beneficiaries claiming 17 percent of the crop subsidy benefits between 2003 and 2005. Twelve Fortune 500 companies received farm subsidies in 2002. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance's $2.3 million farm subsidy payment was by far the largest among these companies. The farm subsidies granted to these Fortune 500 companies since 1995 are--on average--70 times larger than those granted to the median farmer.
IF you need details of this program, Michele Bachmann (R-MN-06), Tom Latham (R-IA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) can probably give you personal stories ... since they have received subsidies in the past.

--- Of course, if you don’t want to impact Ag programs, there is always the “earmarks" that Congress has requested (i.e. F-18, F-22, C-17, etc.) but Pentagon has not requested … Tom Coburn (R-OK) wrote : Not counting the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the “base” Pentagon budget has increased from $407 billion in 2001 to $553 billion for 2011 in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to the newest US defense budget data. Over the past decade, this means a cumulative total increase of almost $1 Trillion for the base DOD budget.

Why highlight Ag and military programs for possible cuts … because Mr. Faux Fiscal Conservative, John Kline voted for the Farm Bill and Republican-sponsored “earmarks”.
“Stop the Pork” is an effective campaign slogan, but Mr. Kline’s votes do not support his rhetoric.

Mr. Kline, the military says Obesity is a national security concern … Republicans recognize it … it’s time for YOU to work for solutions instead of being the obstructionist problem. It's time to quit hiding behind this faux fiscal conservative image ... it's time to invest wisely for America's future.

VOTE 60 : Norm Coleman Leadership produces Republican Victory in Farm Bill

"Judge me, Norm Coleman, by what I've done. By my ability to bring people together and my ability to make good things happen. You can measure it versus a guy who's been there 12 years; 12 years, which by the way is the time when your kids go at first grade to the time they graduate high school. If you're there, get the job done. Be measured by your ability to get the job done. I think that's fair." Candidate Coleman 2002

That was Candidate Coleman who presented an image of a can-do coalition builder. When the election results were announced that Coleman would be the representing Minnesota for the next six years, Independent voters, like me, thought “Let’s give the guy a chance ... if can work across the aisle, that would be great”

Coleman garnered two prime committee assignments – Foreign Relations (which he has disappointed me repeatedly) and Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Agriculture would be the big one for many Minnesotans.

Before discussing the current Farm Bill, it should be noted that the previous Farm Bill was signed by President Bush on May 13, 2002 to be effective with the beginning of the Fiscal Year on October 1, 2002 and expiring at the end of FY2007 ( or September 30, 2007). Coleman’s challenger in 2002, Paul Wellstone was on the Agriculture Committee and despite 9/11 and the military action thereafter, Congress was able to get the bill done in a timely manner. Farmers and bankers knew what to expect.

The House of Representatives held hearings and developed a bill that was passed in July 2007. The Senate though operates on its own time table.
The technically the Farm Security Act of 2002 expired on September 30, but through Public Law No: 110-92 continuing funding for many programs was extended (at the previous funding rates.)
The Senate Agriculture Committee approved the farm bill in October without any dissenting votes. The bill then languished on the floor as Republicans and Democrats clashed over how to deal with the nearly 300 amendments that had been filed.
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) wanted to select a list of amendments that were directly related to farm policy, but Republicans said that he should not be allowed to limit their proposals on such wide-ranging legislation.

On Friday, November 16th, the Senate finally addressed the issue with a procedural vote (meaning “Do we really want to vote on this?). The vote failed as 42 Republican Senators voted “No” (meaning “We are going to drag this out”).
According to Norm Coleman’s interview with former First District Congressman Tim Penny on Friday, Reid suggested that each side be allowed 20 amendments to be considered. Coleman stated that he convinced his fellow Republicans that they should precede. [ Now, we know what Coleman meant when he said “ my ability to bring people together, he meant bringing his fellow Republicans to action. ]

The Senate proceed to consider a number of amendments. EVERY Amendment FAILED …including the amendment known as the Dorgan-Grassley amendment which would have closed loopholes, placed a hard cap of $250,000 on payments and invested the savings in small business development, beginning farmers and other initiatives to create future in rural America. President Bush had requested that payments be limited to $200,000 but the Senate bill is for $1,000,000. This fiscally more responsible amendment failed by four votes with Coleman supporting the $1 million subsidy (read more here) .

So what was the point of waiting ?

We must remember that although subsidies got a lot of media attention, the bill also is the major authorization for nuitrition programs … (Food stamps, emergency food assistance program (TEFAP), Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), etc.) I have already written how Republicans Love Subsidies but Hate Welfare.

This delaying of approval has hurt the people who need these nutrition programs. Although Congress approved a Continuing Resolution in September, it was at the existing levels. As The Star-Tribune reported today “Food inflation has more than doubled during the past 12 months.” For example, nationally, eggs cost 37 percent more than a year ago. Chicken feed -- made mostly of corn -- is 60 to 70 percent of an egg farmer's costs. Dairy farmers pay more for feed, too, up by as much as 40 percent since last year. And why is corn up … demand for ethanol … another highly subsidized product and which will increase sixfold based on the Senate approving the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007 the day before it voted on the Farm Bill.

Let’s look at just how just one program will be impacted … milk and cheese account for about 40 percent of WIC food expenditures. As a result of higher food prices, it will cost significantly more for the people to buy these commodities … but the dollars were capped at last year’s rates … so the additional cost is being born by the needy … or they go without. Further, since the cost of the foods has increased faster than the budget, state WIC programs could have to reduce participation and establish waiting lists.

The end result is a cut to the Safety Net for the working families … but the Safety Net for $1 Million Dollar Mega-Farms is retained.

Thanks, Norm. I’ll be glad to “"Judge me, Norm Coleman, by what I've done.” … you’ve done a horrible job … on a Key Assignment … but I suspect that your Republican colleagues are pleased.
You delivered legislation late, that rewards the wrong people (even above what President Bush wanted) and hurts those that need it most.
By my account, you didn't "get the job done" !

FYI – The VOTE 60 in the title of this commentary refers to my effort to promote the importance of the US Senate races in 2008. VOTE 60 will be the headline of future commentaries and you can read about it here .

VOTE 60 : Klobuchar loses Fiscal Fight to Coleman & Coburn

FYI – The VOTE 60 in the title of this commentary refers to my effort to promote the importance of the US Senate races in 2008. VOTE 60 will be the headline of future commentaries and you can read about it here .


Wanna get a Fiscal Conservatives blood to boil ?

Ask if it is right that $3.1 million in farm payments went to the District of Columbia … or $4.2 million has gone to people living in Manhattan … And $1 billion of taxpayer money for farm payments has gone to Beverly Hills 90210 ?

Fiscal Conservatives see that as wasteful government spending.

Farm subsidies have been getting a lot of media attention … and rightfully so.

Good news for Fiscal Conservatives … we have a Senator who wants to fight for taxpayers’ monies and added an amendment to the Farm Bill to address those excessive payments.

Bad news for Fiscal Conservatives … we have too many Senators that talk about the need for fiscal conservatism, but when it comes to the vote, they side with special interests.

The Fiscal-Fraud Du Jour is Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn (R). There doesn’t seem to be a bill that comes to final vote in the Senate without Senator Coburn offering an amendment … that’s why I call him Doctor Death .
The Farm Bill was no exception as Coburn offered Amendment 3807 : To ensure the priority of the farm bill remains farmers by eliminating wasteful Department of Agriculture spending on golf courses, junkets, cheese centers, and aging barns.
Sounds like a reasonable suggestion … but seven days later the amendment was withdrawn.

The efforts to reign in subsidies had an aggressive amendment known as the Dorgan-Grassley amendment (of which Senator Klobuchar was a co-sponsor.) It would have closed loopholes, placed a hard cap of $250,000 on payments and invested the savings in small business development, beginning farmers and other initiatives to create future in rural America.
Coburn and Coleman voted against this amendment and it failed the SuperMajority requirement (see VOTE60).

Despite that aggressive amendment failing, Senator Klobuchar offered an amendment Roll Call 426 which would allow payments only to full-time farmers making less than $750,000 a year and part-time farmers making less than $250,000, after expenses and use the savings to provide additional funding for certain programs and reduce the Federal deficit.
Once again, Coburn and Coleman voted against this amendment.

Former First District Congressman Tim Penny interviewed Coleman on Friday. Penney is the ultimate Fiscal Conservative and a former member of the House Agriculture Committee and his first question was, “Why did you vote against this?” After hedging for a bit about how others voted, Coleman answered that there are some farmers with million dollar loans and they needed coverage.

Wow. I thought subsidies were to provide a safety net.
IF someone has a million dollar loan, they must also have the collateral and asset base to support that loan. Why one million … what about the poor farmer with $1,000,001 loan ? What about the $2 million dollar farmer?
Isn’t this argument akin to the Social Security argument concerning means testing ?
What is more important subsidizing mega farms or family farms? When smaller operations are driven out of business that destroys the culture of family farming and undermining rural communities.

What is a reasonable safety net ? According to Coleman, not $250,000 … not $750,000 but One Million Dollars !

That’s not a safety net.
That’s protecting a system that ensures subsidies for special interests.
According to Senator Klobuchar the average income of a Minnesota farmer is $54,000 yet there were only TWO Farm Business receiving Crop Subsidy Payments in Minnesota for 2005 that exceeded $750,000 ( oh by the way, they also exceeded $1 million ) and a total of 71 that exceeded the $250,000 threshold.

The bill will now go to a conference committee at which Congressman Collin Peterson (D-MN) wants to get the threshold down to $900,000.

As a Fiscal Conservative, I do not have a lot of hope for Congressman Peterson’s efforts as Republicans Love Farm Subsidies .

Coleman is Fiscal Irresponsibility in Action !