In the first half of our story uncovering the truth about farm subsidies entitled, “USDA’s Inadequate Management Controls Allow Large Corporations to Profit on Farm Subsidies,” we promised to bring you further information about some of the members of Congress whose families have been enjoying government farm subsidies while simultaneously voting down other legislation that they claim will raise the government deficit, that most notably being healthcare reform. We also promised an update on how President Obama is targeting certain agriculture programs such as the subsidy program and crop insurance in his efforts to trim wasteful spending in Washington.

First, let’s start with a story written by Yasha Levine and posted on December 22, 2009 on TruthDig that basically “outs” a few members of Congress as being on the government take (legally of course), yet going out of their way to paint President Obama as a socialist for the programs they deem government “handouts” such as the healthcare reform bill and foreclosure relief spending. While some will see this as old news, the fact that the very folks who are now fighting against “socialist spending” by Obama, have been taking government handouts for years when it came to their families’ farms.

Here is what Mr. Levine gleaned from data compiled by the non-partisan group known as Environmental Working Group:

Michele Bachmann (R-MN) – As first reported in 2007, Bachmann’s family farm, which was owned by her now deceased father-in-law, received $251,973 in federal subsidies between 1995 and 2006. The subsidies were for dairy and corn. According to Bachmann’s financial disclosure forms, her personal stake in the family farm is worth up to $250,000 and she has been earning income from the farm business as recently as 2008 up to as much as $50,000. Although it has been reported that Bachmann voted in 2007 against reauthorizing the farm subsidy bill, in actuality, she voted for the 2007 farm bill that would extend farm subsidies through 2012, but voted against an amendment to the bill  that would end subsidy payments to farms where the average adjusted gross income of the farm’s owners exceeds $250,000.   

Chuck Grassley (R-IA) – Sen. Grassley is just as outspoken, if not more so, than Michele Bachmann when it comes to calling President Obama a socialist, yet he openly admits a personal fondness for farm subsidies for his family, teaching his son and his grandson just how it is done. Over an 11-year period, he and his family have collected more than $1 million dollars in farm subsidy money, and there is nothing in his voting record to indicate that he wants the money to stop flowing to his farm. Hypocrisy in Grassley’s case is palpable as he sits on the Senate Finance Committee and makes it a point to call out most government spending as a move towards socialism.

Sam Brownback (R-KS) – Sen. Sam Brownback is yet another fine example of someone who finds it acceptable to be on the government dole as long as no one else is.  The Brownback family has also been quite fortunate in receiving nearly a half million dollars in government subsidies over the last 11 years. But if you ask him how he feels about healthcare reform? He’ll tell you he prays for it it. Yes, he prays for it to be killed in Congress because it is part of an evil socialist plan to bring down America. Evidently, government handouts to rich Americans, though, is perfectly in line with God’s plan.

Max Baucus (D-MT) – Not only did Sen. Baucus’ family farm collect $250,000 in farm subsidies over the years, but in 2007, as Senate Finance Committee Chairman, he introduced a plan to  Congress that would create a permanent provision in the 2007 Farm Bill to compensate farmers and ranchers for losses they might suffer due to natural disasters. Yet, Baucus was on the side of those who tried to derail the health care reform process as it would just be too costly.

And there are a few more Democrats like Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Rep. Sephanie Sandlin (D-SD) whose families made out quite well when it came to accepting government farm subsidies, but who also, when it came time to spread the wealth around to assure everyone would have a chance at affordable health care or being able to hang onto their family homes, or be able to have food to even feed their families, they just couldn’t see their way fit to vote that way.

Finally, with regard to President Obama’s proposed 2011 budget cuts in agriculture, a report in the online website, AgWeek sets forth these changes: increases in nutritional programs such as the school lunch programs, the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) food assistance program, and food stamps, while cutting aid to farmers by cutting crop insurance spending by $8 billion over 10 years and cutting subsidies to the largest farmers by $2.4 billion over 10 years. Farmers groups across the country think these cuts are a bad idea as do Senators Blanche Lincoln and Sam Brownback in particular. Although many are claiming that it is interesting that the cuts in the crop insurance funding as well as changes to the subsidy program will save just about the same amount of money that can go toward the increase in nutritional programs, the Obama administration claims that those cuts and increases were not planned that way.

So, we’re just going to have to wait and see how it all plays out because this is only a proposal for the budget, and according to Collin Peterson (D-MN), the House Agriculture Commission Committee Chairman, and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), the Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman, there is no interest in cutting farm bill programs.

A lot of Americans, when they heard the news that the Supreme Court ruled that corporations, trade associations, unions and not-for-profit groups could pump as much money as they wanted into the campaigns of candidates of their liking in upcoming federal elections, naturally thought that meant they could actually contribute unfettered amounts of money directly into the coffers of the candidates. Not so. What the ruling actually did was allow for those entities like AT&T, Aetna, Teachers unions, the AFL-CIO, et cetera to throw all the money they wanted towards advertisements for or against the federal candidates of their choice. Big difference, kinda sorta.

The ruling basically now allows big corporate dogs to air their political ads in the same light as those that are aired by the candidates themselves. This has lots of opponents of the ruling crying foul. It has lots of folks saying that big money will now be the deciding factor in every federal race run from now on.

In the majority opinion in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Justice Kennedy wrote:

"This Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy."

Does saying so make it so? Do the justices of the Supreme Court really believe that allowing big corporations to spend untold amounts of money for or against candidates for U.S. Congress and even the Presidency won’t make a difference in the way our elections turn out?

It is important to note that Justices Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer and Sotomayor disagreed with the ruling and Justice Stevens, in the dissenting opinion wrote:

"The Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation. The financial resources, legal structure and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races."

Among those who believe the ruling has opened the floodgates for corporate money to flow into the nation’s electoral process claim that this truly could make or break a candidacy at the last minute when whomever has the most advertising dollars can essentially crush their opponents. Said Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21, "[T]he decision will unleash unprecedented amounts of corporate 'influence-seeking' money on our elections and create unprecedented opportunities for corporate 'influence-buying' corruption."

There are those who say that money from wealthy individuals, trade unions, and corporations has always found its way into our electoral process one way or another and this really won’t make a big difference. Evidently, President Barack Obama disagrees with that assessment. In his State of the Union Address presented to Joint Sessions of Congress after the ruling, the President addressed the ruling specifically and promised to work with Congress on finding ways to legislatively correct what he perceived to be a ruling that opens the door to “big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests.”

With the 2010 Senate elections looming on the horizon, no one will have to wait long to find out if, indeed, this most unusual ruling will open the floodgates of big money and influence on our electoral process.

Source: Supreme Court Gives Corporations, Unions Power to Spend Unlimited Sums on Political Messaging by Michael Beckel, OpenSecrets.org

Here’s a mighty interesting twist on an earmark story that may have many of you asking if we are making it up, but we assure you, it is every bit the truth. What if there was, say, a Representative from Alaska, who was beholden to a certain SW Florida land developer for his generous political contributions, and that land developer just needed a teensy-weensy little favor in return, i.e. some money funneled into development of a road that would lead from a major interstate right to a large tract of land that the developer just happened to own?

And what if that Representative, who just happened to be Chairman of the House Transportation Committee, was able to wrangle some $10M in earmark money out of a house transportation bill to hand to the Floridians in Ft. Myers, FL, doing so in such a way as to make them believe it was for a much needed county project to widen I-75, only to find out that at the last minute, the earmark wording would mysteriously change from widening I-75 to building Coconut Road?

In this particular case, you’d have to stand in line to take turns getting at Rep. Don Young (R-AK) for trying to pull one of the boldest earmark switcheroos in recent history. Here’s how it went down:

-In a 2006 transportation bill, Rep. Young placed an earmark of $10M for the construction of a road known as Coconut Road in Ft. Myers, Florida, which would connect it to I-75, but it was sent back twice, so it was written in such a way as to have people believe it was to widen I-75 in Lee and Collier Counties.

-Bypassing the district’s own representative, Rep. Connie Mack (R-FL), Young proposed the earmark to widen I-75, but is being investigated for allegedly going in later and changing the wording of the earmark to something entirely different, supposedly as a to pay back to local real estate developer, Daniel J. Aronoff, for his generous $40,000 contribution to Young’s campaign days before the legislation was introduced.

-Just to tie up one more loose end, it is important to note that Rep. Connie Mack invited Young down to the area to show him how badly road improvements were needed and Mack was the person who introduced Young to Aronoff.

-According to a report in August, 2007, by a former deputy assistant secretary for the Department of Labor, the wording of the earmark had mysteriously changed--after being passed by Congress, but before being signed by the president—from allocating $10 million for widening and improvements to I-75 to adding the phrase “Coconut Road interchange I-75/Lee County,” which would specifically direct the funds to Coconut Road.

Here’s where it gets interesting. According to officials in Florida’s state, county and municipal governments, they had no idea of the origin of the earmark or why the monies were allocated to the area. One thing they all could agree on was that if SW Florida was going to get $10 million, it sure as heck wasn’t going to be spent on one road. They wanted the money to go for widening I-75 or other more worthy projects.

With that in mind, on August 17, 2007, in a packed meeting of the Lee County Regional Planning Council, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) voted to reject the $10 million earmark, hoping that by sending it back, they could request it be re-sent for the purpose originally intended, the widening of I-75.

But then, the MPO was convinced by Rep. Connie Mack (R-FL) that if they rejected the $10 million, there was a chance they’d not receive any future allocations, and so they reversed their decision and decided to keep the earmark as is, even after learning the earmark likely came from some dirty dealings by Rep. Don Young, who, they since found out, only had his best interests at heart all along.

So, while an investigation into the why’s and how’s of this earmark and other dealings by Rep. Don Young seems to be ongoing, you’re probably wondering what happened to the taxpayers’ money. The $10 million ended up being $9.2 million after federal “adjustments were made and was used for improvements of I-75 at Bonita Beach Road and Immokalee Road, with an accord struck by the governments of Lee and Collier Counties to share the rest of the money.

And what of Young? He’s alive and well in Alaska readying himself for a run at his 20th term this year. Alaskans, albeit a bit tired of his antics, seem to still be behind him, so it looks like he’s got a pretty decent shot of staying right where he is, that is, as long as an indictment isn’t handed down, which seems to either be taking a heck of a long time or will end up being unlikely in the end.

Part two of the story of Rep. Don Young will take us back to Alaska and his involvement in not only the “Bridge to Nowhere” but another attempted bridge project that became known as “Don Young’s Way.”

For as long as we can remember, Americans have come to accept the fact that the US Department of Defense is incapable of tracking its spending. We recall stories about toilet seats, hammers, and even nails with ridiculous price tags, missing military equipment to the tune of billions of dollars and contractor cost overruns resulting in billions of dollars being overspent. And we’re told over and over again how this spending has to stop. It is a vicious cycle that repeats itself from one administration to the next until we realize that what we are witnessing is the dysfunctional relationship the White House has with the Pentagon.

We wonder at reports when new administration officials come to the helm and tell us without batting an eyelash that the pentagon is missing $2.3 trillion and how they (in this case, freshly appointed Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld) are going to put an end once and for all to “pentagon bureaucracy.” Our hopes again dashed, however, when only days later, after the occurrence of 9/11, our then-President, George W. Bush, declares that he will need another $48 billion to fight the war on terror. The war on pentagon overspending is, once again, left for another day, and the oversight is pushed to the back burner.

But wait, shouldn’t we be elated when not just an administration official, but President Obama himself reports in March of 2009 that he is going to put a stop to overspending on government defense contracts, precipitated by a Government Accountability Office report that 95 major Defense Department weapons contracts were over budget by a total of $295 billion? That’s a far cry from the $2.3 trillion just a few years earlier, right? Oh sure, $295 is nothing to sneeze at, but it is less, and we are now hearing our new President tell us that he is getting tough on government contract defense spending.

Not so fast. Just when the American taxpayers are heaving that sigh of relief, that maybe this time the dysfunctional cycle has been broken and defense contractors are going to be facing some harsh realities because a new sheriff is in town, the proverbial $435 hammer drops with the news late in December, 2009 that President Obama is signing into law new legislation providing another $636.3 billion in taxpayer funds for the U.S. military in fiscal 2010. There’s a new war in Afghanistan to fund and the urgency has again pushed the fight to reduce waste and overspending by the Pentagon to the back burner.

And so far this year, there’s not been much more said about making the defense contractors knock a few hundred bucks off those over-priced toilet seats.

According to GAO Report Number GAO-09-67, the U.S. Government spends approximately $16 billion annually in federal farm program payments, a good portion of which is handed out to individuals and various business entities that exceed income eligibility limits.

The report states that out of the 1.8 million recipients getting subsidy payments from the years 2003 through 2006, a whopping 2,702 of them had adjusted gross incomes that exceeded the $2.5 million cap. On top of that, these individuals and/or corporate entities were shown to derive less than three-quarters of their income from farming, ranching or forestry which, under the law, would render them ineligible for the subsidy payments as well.

Nevertheless, $49 million was paid to these entities by the USDA. The USDA cited a number of reasons for the erroneous payments; namely, inadequate resources to properly examine tax and financial information of the individuals receiving the subsidies along with a lack of authority to obtain tax filer data from the individuals for the purposes of reconciling the figures with the requests for subsidies. For this reason, there was virtually no verification process in place to determine which of the entities requesting subsidies were actually qualified to receive them.

Under the 2008 Farm Bill, income eligibility caps have been significantly lowered, thereby increasing the possibility that even more individuals and/or corporate entities will fall into the category of being ineligible for the subsidies as they may easily pass the threshold of a lower cap. However, without adequate resources to determine an entity’s eligibility, this just means that more erroneous subsidy payments will be made to those who apply for but who do not qualify for the assistance.