THEY ARE BLOWING UP YET ANOTHER AGENCY MEANT TO HELP THE WORKING CLASS!
Obama's TPP and the Farm Bill now ready to pass:
The Affordable Care Act, the Immigration Reform, and the Farm Bill are all legislation tied to TPP and pols have been waiting for TPP to be signed to move all the legislation forward.
As we are seeing, all the legislation waiting for the TPP to be signed is now ready to move as neo-liberals and neo-cons work to make sure all the law works with the TPP treaty laws. That means, with agriculture neo-liberals had to move from an outright farm subsidy by paying farmers not to farm to a disguised subsidy.....crop insurance. That's all this issue is about ......what the TPP requirements are. Now, for the American taxpayer it means a lot more tax money for corporate subsidy as global warming is making the mid-west a dust bowl. WAIT A MINUTE,....I THOUGHT THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS WERE AGAINST CORPORATE SUBSIDY? Are you kidding.....trillions in corporate tax breaks in the guise to job creation to expand US corporations globally not a corporate subsidy? THAT'S RIGHT....NEO-LIBERALS ARE ONE GREAT BIG CORPORATE TAX SUBSIDY.
I listened to our local Maryland Chesapeake Bay environmental advocate do a nice job outing O'Malley's failure to press legislation into action.....that's what Maryland does to look progressive....it passes laws and then never enforces them. The way we know this man is not working for REAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES......he never mentions that having a global food corporation is very, very, very very bad for Maryland and the US. He does mention the political sway but not the damage these industrial food corporations reek on our food chain and environment. Even the farmers that own most of the farmland on the Eastern Shore of MD and VA are industrial agriculture. As my grandmother used to say about all those tomatoes growing on the shore.....all of them are shipped away and we are left with bad tomatoes. INDEED. It's the global market that pays more you know.
That is the big picture with the Farm Bill. It is designed to make sure global agriculture does not lose money just as oil subsidies and all the public private partnerships are made to hand all corporate losses to the taxpayer or consumer. THIS IS WHAT NEO-LIBERALS DO....THEY WORK FOR WEALTH AND PROFIT JUST LIKE REPUBLICANS! THEY ARE NOT DEMOCRATS SO WE NEED TO RUN LABOR AND JUSTICE IN ALL PRIMARIES!
So this is what all of Maryland neo-liberals did for you and me.....crop insurance will pay for crop failure in a region of the US that we all know is and will continue to become a dust bowl as global warming weather changes will be long-term. So, global agriculture goes on a buying spree overseas buying all the most fertile land to start farming overseas and will import America's food supply while taxpayers subsidize farms in the mid-west that fail year after year. It guarantees the US will have almost no viable agriculture as these billions of dollars being sunk into failed farming could be used to move US farming further north where climate would not be as extreme and where there may actually be aquifers with water. Remember, all of the mid-west aquifers are drying because global agriculture drained domestic resources so that global corporations could make more profits. THIS IS THE FARM BILL. Meanwhile small family farms are disappearing as land grabs and all these farm subsidies go to the big AG and never to the small farmer.
If you look at the Eastern Shore of MD and VA you will find the same thing. A few great big farm industries own much of the land and cart away the food to sell overseas. This industrial farming is why so much fertilizer is being used and not used correctly. If mom and pop farmer simply used his/her own chicken poop to fertilize a small farm that grew produce for the locals and maybe to send to Baltimore for example.....we would not have the flood of nitrogen, phosphorus and others into the Chesapeake Bay. The same for the global Perdue. If we did not have a global meat industry, but rather went back to small farmers with some chicken houses that fed local and some regional areas, we would not have all that chicken poop, all that processed body waste, and all those hormones and anti-bodies global corporate food suppliers use to maximize profit. So, this is the story the Chesapeake Bay advocate did not tell. What happens with these laws aimed at correcting these problems is as with the RAIN TAX.....it will increase expenses for the small farmers that have little to do with the pollution.
This is what the Farm Bill does on a national level. It expands and supports global agriculture and global meat which in turn gives us unhealthy food and drains resources.....
AND ALL OF MARYLAND NEO-LIBERALS VOTED FOR IT!
They didn't do it for the Food Stamps because remember, in 2009 they had a super-majority of democrats that could have funded Food Stamps for a decade or more at full value and they did not because they wanted to pretend Food Stamps were forcing them to compromise!
RUN AND VOTE FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE IN ALL MARYLAND PRIMARIES TO SHAKE THE NEO-LIBERAL BUGS FROM THE RUG!
Look below who Obama and Maryland neo-liberals have as the chief negotiators for the agriculture part of TPP------MONSANTO.....
THE ENTIRE WORLD HATES MONSANTO AND DO NOT WANT IT IN THEIR COUNTRIES BUT ARE BEING FORCED WITH THESE TRADE DEALS TO LET THIS MONOCULTURE DISASTER INTO THEIR COUNTRIES!
Top Agriculture Negotiator on to the TPP: Monsanto
Protect the land from Monsanto
Educate! Food and Water, TPP
By Barbara Chicherio, www.nationofchange.org
June 24th, 2013
Something is looming in the shadows that could help erode our basic rights and contaminate our food. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has the potential to become the biggest regional Free Trade Agreement in history, both in economic size and the ability to quietly add more countries in addition to those originally included. As of 2011 its 11 countries accounted for 30 percent of the world’s agricultural exports. Those countries are the US, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Viet Nam. Recently, Japan has joined the negotiations.
Six hundred US corporate advisors have had input into the TPP. The draft text has not been made available to the public, press or policy makers. The level of secrecy around this agreement is unparalleled. The majority of Congress is being kept in the dark while representatives of US corporations are being consulted and privy to the details.
The chief agricultural negotiator for the US is the former Monsanto lobbyist, Islam Siddique. If ratified the TPP would impose punishing regulations that give multinational corporations unprecedented right to demand taxpayer compensation for policies that corporations deem a barrier to their profits.
There appears not to be a specific agricultural chapter in the TPP. Instead, rules affecting food systems and food safety are woven throughout the text. This agreement is attempting to establish corporations’ rights to skirt domestic courts and laws and sue governments directly with taxpayers paying compensation and fines directly from the treasury.
Though TPP content remains hidden, here are some things we do know:
Members of Congress are concerned that the TPP would open the door to imports without resolving questions around food safety or environmental impacts on its production.
Procurement rules specifically forbid discrimination based on the quality of production. This means that public programs that favor the use of sustainably produced local foods in school lunch programs could be prohibited.
The labeling of foods containing GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) will not be allowed. Japan currently has labeling laws for GMOs in food. Under the TPP Japan would no longer be able to label GMOs. This situation is the same for New Zealand and Australia. In the US we are just beginning to see some progress towards labeling GMOs. Under the TPP GMO labels for US food would not be allowed.
In April 2013, Peru placed a 10-year moratorium on GMO foods and plants. This prohibits the import, production and use of GMOs in foods and GMO plants and is aimed at safeguarding Peru’s agricultural diversity. The hope is to prevent cross-pollination with non-GMO crops and to ban GMO crops like Bt corn. What will become of Peru’s moratorium if the TPP is passed?
There is a growing resistance to Monsanto’s agricultural plans in Vietnam. Monsanto (the US corporation controlling an estimated 90% of the world seed genetics) has a dark history with Vietnam. Many believe that Monsanto has no right to do business in a country where Monsanto’s product Agent Orange is estimated to have killed 400,000 Vietnamese, deformed another 500,000 and stricken another 2 million with various diseases.
Legacies of other trade agreements that serve as a warning about the TPP have a history of displacing small farmers and destroying local food economies. Ten years following the passage of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) 1.5 million Mexican farmers became bankrupt because they could not compete with the highly subsidized US corn entering the Mexican market.
In the same 10 years Mexico went from a country virtually producing all of its own corn to a country that now imports at least half of this food staple. Mexican consumers are now paying higher prices for Monsanto’s GMO corn.
With little or no competition for large corporations Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta now control 57 percent of the commercial food market.
While the TPP is in many ways like NAFTA and other existing trade agreements, it appears that the corporations have learned from previous experience. They are carefully crafting the TPP to insure that citizens of the involved countries have no control over food safety, what they will be eating, where it is grown, the conditions under which food is grown and the use of herbicides and pesticides.
If the TPP is adopted the door will be open wider for human rights and environmental abuse. Some of the things we should expect to see include:
more large scale farming and more monocultures;
destruction of local economies;
no input into how our food is grown or what we will be eating;
increased use of herbicides and pesticides;
increased patenting of life forms;
more GMO plants and foods; and
no labeling of GMOs in food.
Together these are a step backwards for human rights and a giant step towards Monsanto’s control of our food.
Please pass the word to others about the TPP as most Americans are unaware of this trade agreement or its ominous effects if passed.
HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT WHETHER FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL -----THE COMMON PHRASE TODAY IS -------FAILED PUBLIC POLICY.
The reason you hear of massive protests around the world is the TPP and citizens in these countries are set on getting rid of politicians allowing their countries to become involved. The US will do the same as people are able to hear the truth and because TPP is illegal it can be made NULL and VOID if passed. Many of the countries involved are developing and have agriculture as their way of life and what neo-liberal politicians writing these TPP want to do is have US dominated global agriculture to come in and do what was done in the US to these subsistence farmers.
IT IS TRULY EVIL STUFF AND YOUR NEO-LIBERAL RIGHT HERE IN MARYLAND IS BACKING IT!
So, what will happen in these countries is global agriculture will take over, the meats and food will be filled with hormones and anti-biotics and GMO seeds will cause massive crop failure by making crop pests resistant to any chemical treatment. Can you imagine what a country like China will do to hogs if they own Smithfield....even as we are told they will operate in the US? I know, you say 'can it get worse'?
THAT'S A NEO-LIBERAL FOR YOU!!!!!
TPP: Doubling down on failed trade policy
Posted March 6, 2013 by Karen Hansen-Kuhn
Used under creative commons license from Gobierno de Chile.
A 2010 summit with leaders of the member states of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP).
The 16th round of negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) began this week in Singapore. That trade deal has the potential to become the biggest regional free-trade agreement in history, both because of the size of the economies participating in the negotiations and because it holds open the possibility for other countries to quietly “dock in” to the existing agreement at some point in the future. What started as an agreement among Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore in 2005 has expanded to include trade talks with Australia, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the United States and Vietnam. Japan and Thailand are considering entering into the negotiations, and others are waiting in the wings.
And yet, despite the potential of this agreement to shape (and in very real ways override) a vast range of public policies, there has been very little public debate on the TPP to date. Governments have refused to release negotiating texts. Media attention on agriculture and the TPP has focused on New Zealand’s insistence on access to U.S. dairy markets and Japan’s concerns over rice imports.
While important, that debate is much too narrow. The TPP is not only about lowering tariffs. It has the potential to greatly expand protections for investors over those for consumers and farmers, and severely restrict governments’ ability to use public policy to reshape food systems. The fundamental causes of recent protests across the globe over food prices, the rising market power of a handful of global food and agriculture corporations, as well as the dual specters of rising hunger and obesity around the world, point to the need to transform the world’s food systems, not to lock the current dysfunction situation in place.
In Who’s at the Table? Demanding Answers on Agriculture in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, IATP raises questions around investment, food safety (especially in emerging new food technologies), procurement and competition policy that should guide an informed public debate around the right rules for agricultural trade.
Trade policy should start from such goals as ending global hunger, enhancing rural and urban incomes and employment, and encouraging a transition to climate friendly agriculture--not from the bottom line of multinational corporations. The burden of proof should be on governments to demonstrate that the commitments being negotiated in the TPP will advance the human rights to food and development. Given the stakes for agriculture and food systems in all of the countries involved, they should include all stakeholders in a frank discussion of the trade rules that are needed to ensure that food sovereignty, rural livelihoods and sustainable development take precedence over misguided efforts to expand exports at any cost. That is what should be on the table in Singapore.
If you look at this article you will see the big AG subsidizing is one great big fraud and below this article you will see pols concerned that Food Stamp and fuel subsidy has too much fraud. Indeed, there is pressure placed on the poor to sell their Food Stamps....but solving the need for them will eliminate that problem.....corporate fraud by people having millions of dollars....THIS NEEDS ATTENTION. This Farm Bill simply super-sizes the opportunity for fraud as these global agriculture corporations are now working both the import and export side of the aisle.
REMEMBER, WITH CORPORATIONS AND THE RICH NO LONGER PAYING TAXES YOU AND I ARE THE ONES HANDING OUR TAX REVENUE STRAIGHT INTO THE POCKET OF CORPORATE SUBSIDY!
Corporate Welfare Racket: Big Agriculture’s Crop Insurance Fraud
posted by Marcos Da Silva September 13, 2013 Current Events,
A federally subsidized crop insurance program instituted in the wake of the Dust Bowl to help protect American farmers has matured into an undesirable situation that facilitates opportunism by duplicitous growers and financial institutions, who bank on exploiting the trust of taxpayers who helplessly foot the bill.
Today’s federal crop insurance makes it dangerously easy for planters to commit fraud and hold a cavalier attitude about crops they have no incentive to maintain since they will be compensated regardless of their yield or success. Farmers need not have a vested interest in caring for their crops and may gamble on risky plantings.
The arrangement is pretty much a setup for taxpayers.
The government pays 18 approved insurance companies to run its crop insurance program, doling out $1.4 billion last year to cover the “administrative costs” incurred by these insurance companies. The government then pays farmers to buy coverage AND on top of that, it also pays the bills on losses if losses exceed predetermined limits.
And this all happens even as farm income this year is expected to top $120 billion, its highest inflation-adjusted mark since 1973, and as median commercial farm household income hits $84,649, almost 70 percent higher than that of the typical American household.
Taxpayers should not finance payments for a business sector that is more than capable of thriving on its own.
Crop Insurance Anatomy Of A Fraud
For obvious reasons, the growing insurance tab is a bipartisan target.
In a budget strained America, even diametrically opposed figures such as President Obama and Republican House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan recognize a problem with the bloated subsidized insurance program, but the farm and insurance lobbies, which spent at least $52 million influencing lawmakers in the 2012 election cycle, are resilient forces.
“We have been subsidizing some of the farmers who least need it in a way that is really costing taxpayers a lot of money,” said Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat of New Hampshire. “We’re never going to solve our budget challenges if that’s what we’re doing.”
Crop insurers say that the subsidized insurance helps stabilize food prices while protecting farmers from losses and sparing politicians from ad-hoc farm bailouts. But unlike direct farm aid payments, which are capped at $40,000 per farm, there is no limit on crop insurance subsidies.
And there is no transparency. The names of those receiving payouts from the program are kept secret. In 2011, 26 anonymous farmers each got annual subsidies of more than $1 million; and more than 10,000 received $100,000 or more. One grower of tomatoes and peppers in Florida enjoyed a subsidy of $1.9 million.
It pays to be a farmer in America.
Crop Insurance Covering Companies' CostsThe U.S. crop insurance program, intended to safeguard farmers from natural disasters, has mutated into an income support mechanism that almost eliminates risk from agriculture and helps private insurance companies benefit from public assistance.
And when it’s not the insurance companies benefitting at taxpayer expense, it’s the farmers.
By law, insurers are obligated to cover anyone who applies for crop insurance. Yet. farmers pay only about 38 percent of their insurance bills. Policies protect as much as 85 percent of a farm’s average yield, but over 70 percent of policies guarantee income rather than yield.
When last year’s drought drove corn prices to record highs, farmers with “harvest price option” policies were paid those inflated prices for what didn’t even grow — contributing to a record bill for taxpayers and record income for farmers. Taxpayers bore the burden of almost 75 percent of the 2012 insurance payouts.
And that’s not even accounting for any collusion there might be between insurance companies and farmers, or as taxpayers like to call it…
Exposing dangerous flaws in America’s crop insurance program in North Carolina, in 2009 it was discovered that an entire network of insurance agents, claims adjusters and farmers had been conning the government for over a decade to the tune of $100 million in taxpayer money.
Last December, Harry Dean Canady, found himself pleading guilty to defrauding the federal crop insurance system for $1 million. But Canady was the tip of the iceberg in the largest fraud in the program’s history, a case that so far has ensnared 41 North Carolina tobacco farmers, insurance agents and claims adjusters whose law breaking cost taxpayers close to $100 million.
The evidence is incontrovertible:
America’s crop insurance system is in need of serious reform.
There is a funny part in this article that states that there is a scheme to give fuel subsidy with food stamps that circumvents the law!!!! That's why they needed to cut. The Farm Bill is a republican one -----all the things a global corporation needs and democrats pretended it was all about the Food Stamps. Poor people are indeed often forced to hand over Food Stamps or try to sell them for money. That reflects on you and me....
House Passes Farm Bill, Crop Subsidies Preserved
By AP / Mary Clare Jalonick Jan. 29, 20143
After years of setbacks, a nearly $100 billion-a-year compromise farm bill cleared the House on Wednesday despite strong opposition from conservatives who sought a bigger cut in food stamps.
The five-year bill, which preserves generous crop subsidies, heads to the Senate, where approval seems certain. The White House said President Barack Obama would sign it.
The measure, which the House approved 251-166, had backing from the Republican leadership team, even though it makes smaller cuts to food stamps than they would have liked. After wavering for several years, the GOP leaders were seeking to put the long-stalled bill behind them and build on the success of a bipartisan budget passed earlier this month. Leaders in both parties also were hoping to bolster rural candidates in this year’s midterm elections.
House Speaker John Boehner did not cast a vote on the bill, a commonplace practice for a speaker, but he had issued a statement Monday saying it was “worthy of the House’s support.” Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., voted for the bill despite concerns from some in her caucus that the bill cut too much from the food stamp program.
The bill ultimately would cut about $800 million a year from the $80 billion-a-year food stamp program, or around 1 percent. The House had sought a 5 percent cut.
The legislation also would continue to heavily subsidize major crops for the nation’s farmers while eliminating some subsidies and shifting them toward more politically defensible insurance programs.
House Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., called the compromise a “miracle” after trying to get the bill passed for almost three years. An early version of the legislation was defeated on the House floor last June after conservatives said the food stamp cuts were too modest and liberal Democrats said they were too deep.
The House later passed a bill with a higher, $4 billion cut, arguing at the time that the program had spiraled out of control after costs doubled in the last five years. But cuts that high were ultimately not possible after the Senate balked and the White House threatened a veto. The Senate had sought a cut of $400 million annually.
Many House conservatives still voted against the bill — 63 Republicans opposed it, one more than in June.
One of those conservative opponents was Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind. “It spends money we simply don’t have,” he said.
But 89 Democrats supported it, bolstered by the lower cut in food stamps. The top Democrat on the agriculture panel, Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson, said he also enticed some of his colleagues with more money for fruit, vegetable and organic programs.
The final savings in the food stamp program would come from cracking down on some states that seek to boost individual food stamp benefits by giving people small amounts of federal heating assistance that they don’t need. That heating assistance, sometimes as low as $1 per person, triggers higher benefits, and some critics see that practice as circumventing the law. The compromise bill would require states to give individual recipients at least $20 in heating assistance before a higher food stamp benefit could kick in.
Some Democrats said the food stamp cut still is too high.
Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, one of the states that have boosted benefits through heating assistance, said the cut will be harmful on top of automatic food stamp cuts that went into place in November.
“I don’t know where they are going to make that up,” McGovern said.
To pass the bill, Lucas and his Senate counterpart, Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, found ways to bring many potential naysayers on board. They spent more than two years crafting the bill to appeal to members from all regions of the country. They included a boost in money for crop insurance popular in the Midwest; higher rice and peanut subsidies for Southern farmers; and renewal of federal land payments for Western states.
They also backed away from repealing a catfish program — a move that would have angered Mississippi lawmakers — and dropped House language that would have thwarted a California law requiring all eggs sold in the state to come from hens living in larger cages. Striking out that provision was a priority for California lawmakers who did not want to see the state law changed.
For those seeking reform of farm programs, the legislation would eliminate a $4.5 billion-a-year farm subsidy called direct payments, which are paid to farmers whether they farm or not. But the bill nonetheless would continue to heavily subsidize major crops — corn, soybeans, wheat, rice and cotton — while shifting many of those subsidies toward more politically defensible insurance programs. That means farmers would have to incur losses before they could get a payout.
The almost $100 billion-a-year bill would save around $1.65 billion annually overall, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The amount was less than the $2.3 billion annual savings the agriculture committees originally projected for the bill.
An aide to Lucas said the difference was due to how the CBO calculated budget savings from recent automatic across-the-board spending cuts, known as sequestration.
Here is a local look at how ordinary farming families see this farm bill and what it does to the fabric of our US agriculture system.....Nebraska is a solidly RED state so these are views from conservatives.....who by the way want to get rid of neo-cons just as democrats want to get rid of neo-liberals.
Farm subsidies: Largest corporate welfare program Tell North Platte what you think
by The Platte Institute - 6/30/2012
Last week, the United States Senate passed a new farm bill which, among its many provisions, changes the way crop insurance is calculated, makes some changes to farm subsidies, and finances new price support programs.
While the bill still has to pass the House of Representatives, it once again raises the issue of farm subsidies and their effects on the overall economy.
Farm subsidies first began during the Great Depression when Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt enacted price floors and began paying farmers not to grow crops in order to deal with oversupply and stop prices from falling.
Since then, Congress has passed similar farm bills sustaining these subsidies approximately every five years, resulting in a gross distortion of the agricultural markets.
These subsidies were originally intended to help small family farmers from bankruptcy due to falling commodity prices, but they have since become America's largest corporate welfare program.
Farm subsidies are awarded based upon the type of crop grown - with 90 percent being awarded for growing corn, wheat, rice, cotton, and soybeans - and the amount of crop grown, with high producers receiving higher subsidies. This means that most subsidies go not to the family farmer who could face bankruptcy in the event of a bad yield, but instead go to large farms and agribusinesses who can afford to produce the favored crops in massive quantities.
The corporate welfare nature of farm subsidies becomes clear when one examines exactly where the subsidies go. Nebraska currently receives $239 million in direct payment subsidies, the seventh-highest payment in the nation.
Those payments go to the 73.2 percent of all Nebraska farmers who collect government subsidies.
Of those 73.2 percent, 10 percent collected 62 percent of all subsidies awarded in the state. The top 10 percent of subsidized farmers in Nebraska collected an average of $35,752 per year in subsidies between 1995 and 2010, while the bottom 80 percent of Nebraska's subsidized farmers collected an average of $1,334 per year in subsidies over the same time period.
Adding to the idea that farm subsidies are far from a "safety net" is that fact that Nebraska farmers are currently seeing record-high farm income. In 2011, the net total farm income was $5.4 billion, a 35 percent increase over 2010, a year where farmers already saw their income increase 49 percent from 2009.
Farm income accounted for one-third of the state's income growth in 2011. On a national level, 2010 Census data indicates that the average farm household income was 25 percent higher than the average for all U.S. taxpayers.
On top of all this, some of the subsidies go to organizations that do not use farming as their primary income, further diminishing the role of subsidies as a last resort safety net.
For example, between 1995 and 2010, the 19th largest recipient of farm subsidies in the state of Nebraska was the University of Nebraska Board of Regents, who received $2,797,796 in subsidies from the federal government over those 15 years.
Nebraskans must recognize that we do not need subsidies to have a thriving agricultural sector.
The example of New Zealand shows that when a country eliminates subsidies it can actually create innovation which improves the economic health of the agricultural sector. In 1984, the New Zealand government subsidized 44 percent of all sheep farming, meaning that although farmers sold lamb for $30, it was only actually worth $12.50 in the international marketplace with the government making up the difference.
That same year New Zealand eliminated their sheep farming subsidies. By 1989, after changing how they produced, processed, and sold their product, New Zealand farmers found a new market for their lamb and began selling it for $30 without government assistance. By 1999, the price had increased to $115.
Far from providing a safety net to small farmers - something that is better provided through things like crop and disaster insurance - farm subsidies have become tools for corporate welfare, taking taxpayer money and giving it to organizations that do not need it.
Nebraskans should encourage their federal representatives to end farm subsidies and allow farmers to be independent from the government.