Where Was The Wave Election In Texas Last Night? Right Up A Blue Dog Ass

This cycle, Democrats have grown used to winning special elections deep in red territory, as big anti-Trump Democratic turn-out surged to overwhelm demoralized and disgusted Republicans. The opposite happened in Texas last night, where a little known right-wing Republican, Pete Flores, beat an all too well-known right-wing Democrat, Pete Gallego, in a very important special election for a state Senate seat-- a seat that will now give the GOP a super-majority in the state Senate.

Pete Gallego is a corrupt Blue Dog, the kind the DCCC and Nancy Pelosi play footsie with and are re-stocking the Democratic House caucus with this cycle. Ex-Congressman Gallego is the same kind of piece of crap like current DCCC candidates Jeff Van Drew (NJ), Max Rose (NY), Kathy Manning (NC), Anthony Brindisi (NY), Ron DiNicola (PA)... When will the DCCC ever learn to stop recruiting and supporting this garbage? Democratic voters do not want them. (To answer my own question: never, not while the crew that has controlled the DCCC since 2005 still runs the dysfunctional show over there.)

This was the first time in 139 years-- think of that... 1879. Rutherford B. Hayes (R) had just lost the popular vote to Samuel Tilden (D) but a "special" congressional commission awarded him 20 contested electoral votes. The Compromise of 1877-- in which the Democrats acquiesced to Hayes's election on the condition that he withdraw remaining troops protecting African-Americans from the KKK in the South-- brought about the end of Reconstruction. Yes... another one-term illegitimate president, except without help from the Kremlin, doing long-term irrepairable harm to our country.  Yesterday was the first time in 139 years that the Democrats managed to lose the district-- a district with a PVI of D+12. How horrible does a Democratic candidate have to be to lose that blue of a seat in the middle of an anti-red wave cycle? Ask the DCCC. Gallego has been their boy for years. He's what they look for in every canddiate-- someone with no values, with an innate conservative lean, who will be happy to line his pockets and vote with the leadership, especially when they need someone to kill "business unfriendly" progressive legislation.

Gallego lost 53% to 47%, to a retired game warden, giving the Republicans a 3/5 super-majority in the state Senate. The two were competing for the seat of state Sen. Carlos Uresti (D) who was forced to retiree after being convicted of 11 felony charges. (People don't like corrupt politicians. Why is that so hard to grok?)

Christian Archer, Gallego’s campaign strategist, said he was shocked by the results, adding that they weren’t able to generate as much excitement as the Republicans.

“I don’t have any regrets, but I have a lot of disappointment,” Archer said.

No excitement generated? For a former congressman beloved of the DC establishment for his easy-going corruption and rot-gut conservatism? How is that possible? You mean Democratic voters don't want corrupt conservatives, even in wave election years? STAT! Someone tell Pelosi! Oh... too late.

“It will provide a completely unexpected gift for Republicans for the next legislative session,” said Mark Jones, a professor of political science at Rice University.

Jones said Flores’ victory all but assured a Republican supermajority next year, which would allow Senate Republicans to bring bills to the floor without any Democratic support.

“Tonight, I doubt anyone other than Pete Flores is happier than Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick,” Jones said.

Indeed, Patrick was jubilant at Flores’ victory party at Don Pedro’s restaurant on San Antonio’s Southwest Side.

“Tonight, you all just made history,” Patrick told supporters. “For the first time in history, we have 21 Republican senators. For the first time in history, we have a Hispanic Republican senator.”

Patrick, who spent around $175,000 on Flores’ campaign, said the supermajority was secured Tuesday night.

“This guy gives us a two-thirds majority,” he said.

Late Tuesday, the Republican Party of Texas also touted Flores’ win.

“Congratulations to Peter Flores on his stunning victory in SD 19 tonight-- a thrilling win for Peter Flores, the citizens of SD 19 and Republicans across Texas,” Chairman James Dickey said in a statement.

More than 25,000 Texans voted in the early voting period and by mail before Tuesday. Some county election officials said they’ve seen higher turnout in the runoff than the special election a few months ago.

Brandon Rottinghaus, a professor of political science at the University of Houston and author of Inside Texas Politics, credited Gallego’s loss to complacency.

Warning to DC Dems: Texas Senate District 19 stretches from San Antonio's east side to far West Texas-- just like must-win TX-23, where Gina Jones is up against Republican incumbent Will Hurd. The 23rd district-- formerly "represented" by Gallego-- has a PVI of R+1. Hillary beat Trump there 49.8% to 46.4%. It's a 71% Latino district. The DCCC, Blue Dogs, New Dems and Texas party establishment originally ran Jay Hulings, who only managed to garner 15% of the vote and come in a distant 4th. That's the DCCC being in touch with Texas, the same exact way they're in touch with California, Pennsylvania, Iowa , Florida and everywhere else. Anyway, too bad Rick Treviño didn't win the runoff. We'd be breathing easy for TX-23 now if he had. But he only was able to raise $56,021. So far Gina Jones has spent $1,177,927 to Will Hurd's $2,019,314. This corporate money in elections thing seems to be working out poorly. Maybe it should be a Democratic priority... rather than PAYGO.

Will The DCCC Lose TX-23 Again By Running Corrupt Blue Dog Pete Gallego?

Former Bernie Bexar County coordinator Rick Treviño

TX-23, the state's largest congressional district, stretches from the suburbs south and west of San Antonio right across west Texas into Socorro and the suburbs east of El Paso. Of the 29 counties in the district, only 4 have significant numbers of voters-- Bexar, El Paso, Medina, and Val Verde. It's the DCCC's #1 electoral priority in Texas for the 2018 midterms. But the DCCC shouldn't even have to be fighting for TX-23. They should own. The district, which is over 70% Latino, went narrowly for Obama in 2008, narrowly for Romney in 2012 and then gave Hillary a 49.8% to 46.4% win over Señor Trumpanzee. That there's a non-Hispanic Republican congressman there is testimony to the DCCC's willful incompetence. They keep running an egregiously corrupt conservative that the district hates, Blue Dog Pete Gallego.

Gallego won the seat in 2012, voted with the Republicans on virtually everything, and was promptly defeated two years later. He ran again last year and, while Hillary was winning the district, he lost to Will Hurd again, this time 109,816 (48.5%) to 106,049 (46.8%). Only as bad a candidate as Gallego could lose to a Republican here. So, of course, he's running again next year, to the delight of the corrupt conservatives in Congress who would love to see him back, helping them to make the Kings Landing swamp ever more fetid and disgusting. [Gallego, who is already openly raising money for the race, says he hasn't decided whether to try for a 4th time or not.] There are 3 other candidates so far so Gallego could have a hard time winning the nomination.

Jay Hulings just resigned as assistant U.S. Attorney and jumped in last week. He's a big-time Castro ally and their wing is pushing him in a really big way, cock-blocking the worthless Gallego at every turn. No one seems to know if Hulings is appreciably less conservative than Gallego-- he worked for right-wing war-monger Jane Harman at one time-- but he's certainly not as corrupt.

Gina Ortiz Jones is another credible candidate in the primary, although her website has, ominously, no issues page, usually a very bad sign. She a former Air Force intelligence officer who saw active duty in Iraq. Her real intelligence and armed services experience would help her go toe-to-toe with Hurd in a general election contest.

Then there's Berniecrat Rick Treviño, a San Antonio high school teacher who ran for City Council this year and narrowly (28 votes) missed a runoff. The San Antonio Bernie crowd loves him and his campaign platform is firmly committed to progressive issues like Medicare-For-All.

"My platform is not going to be tempered by considerations of what corporate donors or the establishment thinks," Treviño said. "I just know what I’m going to do is stick to my issues, stick to my platform." ...Treviño called Gallego's potential candidacy one of the reasons the teacher decided to get in the race. Noting Hillary Clinton won the district while Gallego lost in it in 2016, Treviño said of Gallego: "Why should we entrust him again? Right now there's so much on the line."

The decisions by Hulings and Treviño to enter the race come days come days after a federal court redistricting ruling that left Hurd's 23rd District untouched while invalidating two other districts. Yet the shape of the 23rd district could still be affected, as it shares a border in the San Antonio area with the 35th district, one of the two that are now set to be redrawn.

The DCCC still hasn't bothered to replace their Regional Vice Chair for the crucial Texas area, where so much is at stake. Jared Polis (D-CO) dropped out of the job, having never done anything for it anyway, after he declared he is running for governor of Colorado. So, as usual, the DCCC is giving Texas short shrift (except as a place for fundraising). This morning a member of Congress asked me if the NRCC is as dysfunctional as the DCCC. It's also dysfunctional but in different ways. They'll never be as incompetent as the DCCC under Pelosi but they're close behind.

Does Pelosi Really Care About Gun Safety Laws-- Or Is She Just Playing Games With Voters, While Recruiting NRA Shills For Congress?

So who do the hypocrites at the DCCC support and who do they oppose?

You probably heard how the Republicans are absolutely shoveling dark money into the congressional races to try to salvage their majorities in the Senate and House. It may be too late for the Senate, but McConnell's SuperPAC will be spending over $2 million per day between now and November 8-- money from odious characters and modern day robber barons like the Kochs, Adelsons, Paul Singer and the crackpot Mercers from Long Island. And all that money is being focused on just 6 states: Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, to save Roy Blunt, Kelly Ayotte, Richard Burr and Pat Toomey-- and to try to drag Todd Young and Joe Heck over the finish line.

And just yesterday the NRCC dumped 16 unimaginative TV attack ads against Jackie Rosen (NV), Joe Garcia (FL), Kim Myers (NY), Stephanie Murphy (FL), Ruben Kihuen (NV), Morgan Carroll (CO), Terri Bonoff (MN), Pete Gallego (TX), Angie Craig (MN), Brad Ashford (NE), Monica Vernon (IA), Colleen Deacon (NY), LuAnn Bennett (VA), Zephyr Teachout (NY), Randy Perkins (FL) and Lon Johnson (MI)-- and that was after dozens of radio ads against Democrats and another batch of TV attack ads in the last week against Steve Santasiero (PA), Ami Bera (CA), Emily Cain (ME), Tom Nelson (WI), and more against Joe Garcia, Morgan Carroll, Monica Vernon, Brad Ashford, Angie Craig, Zephyr Teachout, Lon Johnson, and Martin Babinec (the independent running in the 3-way in NY-22).

Now, true, most of these ads are so juvenile and ineffective that there literally are observers saying that the Democratic candidates and the DCCC should report them to the FEC as in-kind contributions, but the NRCC is counting on spending a load of cash in the next two weeks to brainwash voters with frequency. Even ads this stupid could be effective. (Look at the one they're running against Zephyr Teachout. It's so laughable, it's an insult to the voters in the Hudson Valley and Catskills area of upstate New York.)

Meanwhile, many of the candidates the DCCC is spending most heavily to bolster, particularly Blue Dogs who are far from the Democratic mainstream, are the kinds of candidates progressives and activists are least likely to want to defend. Regardless of how bad the GOP incumbents are-- and they are really a sordid bunch-- who wants to defend Democrats running as NRA heroes against what the vast majority of Americans crave from Congress in terms of gun safety (to pick just one example). The DCCC has dumped a fortune into the campaigns of right-wing NRA-whores Lon Johnson (MI)-- $1,321,129 so far, including $346,634 this week-- and Pete Gallego (TX)-- $2,736,390. Voters-- especially Democrats, but independents and mainstream Republicans as well, want sane gun safety laws. Smart candidates, like Ruben Kihuen (NV) and DuWayne Gregory (NY) are actively campaigning for background checks and passage of a No Fly/No buy law, but the DCCC persists in recruiting and backing right-wing Democrats who stand with the GOP and NRA on their unpopular positions.

And it isn't just the Lon Johnson and Pete Gallego clamoring for NRA love and support. The NRA poster boys for gun-nuttery in California and Florida, respectively Lou Correa and Darren Soto, are also on Pelosi's DCCC's Red to Blue program-- and both in very blue, safe Democratic districts where no one has to pander to the gun nuts if they don't want to. So is the Democratic Party serious about protecting us from gun-crazed lunatics? Or is it just a convenient cudgel to use, opportnistically, against Republicans from time to time? Isn't it time for dishonest career hacks like Pelosi and Hoyer and their leadership team to step down and make way for less jaded Democrats in Congress? The DCCC supports and funds right-wing garbage candidates like Lon Johnson, Darren Soro, Lou Correa and Pete Gallego but disgusting racist slob Steve Israel has prohibited the DCCC from backing DuWayne Gregory who's is in a winnable race in a suburban Long Island district that is all in for Hillary and against Trump. We at Blue America are doing our best... but we don't have the tens of millions of dollars the DCCC and Pelosi are wasting on Blue Dogs and New Dems who are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Please consider chipping in what you can-- directly to the candidates' Get Out the Vote efforts-- by tapping the thermometer on the right.

The DCCC Is Tying Republican Incumbents To Trump Even After They've Disowned Him

The above ad from the DCCC just started running in TX-23, the immense South Texas congressional district (almost a quarter of the state in size!) that stretches from Socorro and the outskirts of southwest El Paso, along the Rio Grande border with Chihuahua and Coahuila through Guadalupe, Big Bend, Del Rio, the big smuggling center in Eagle Pass, and up into the western and southern suburbs of San Antonio. Those Bexar County suburbs are the Republican part of the swing district-- won narrowly by Obama in 2008 and narrowly by Romney in 2012. In 2012, Ted Cruz also won the district-- which is 71% Latino-- but so did corrupt conservative Blue Dog Pete Gallego. Gallego was one of the worst members of Congress for his 2-year stint-- voting with the GOP on core issues far more frequently than with the Democrats. So in 2014, Democrats just refused to even bother to come out to vote for him and he lost to ex-CIA agent Will Hurd 57,459 (50%) to 55,037 (48%). His 2012 vote total (96,477) utterly collapsing.

Gallego, operative, dog buscuits

By the summer of 2013, DWT had already rated Gallego among the 10 worst freshmen Democrats-- along with garbage members like Sean Patrick Maloney (NY), Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Patrick Murphy (FL), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), Cheri Bustos (IL), Dan Maffei (NY), Joe Garcia (FL)... all Blue Dogs and New Dems from the craven Republican wing of the Democratic Party). That first term, Gallego voted with the Republicans to weaken regulations on Wall Street, with the Republicans on domestic spying (CISPA), with the Republicans to freeze the pay of federal employees, for Ryan's austerity budgets, with the Republicans on several bills written by oil and gas lobbyists and with the GOP to oppose Obama's plans to shut down Guantánamo-- not once, but twice. What an inspiration!

The last time I checked-- this week-- the DCCC had already spent $2,651,421 on his race, the second-largest amount on any congressional candidate. He's been endorsed by both the Blue Dogs and the New Dems, so exactly the kind of corrupt, Wall Street-friendly conservative the DCCC favors. As of the June 30 filing deadline Gallego had raised $1,273,280. Last week alone, Pelosi's House Majority PAC spent (wasted) $906,196 on his race-- tragic, as she continues to refuse money to progressives like Mary Ellen Balchunis (PA), Tom Wakely (TX), DuWayne Gregory (NY), Carol Shea-Porter (NH), Paul Clements (MI), Mary Hoeft (WI), Alina Valdes (FL), while severely underfunding Zephyr Teachout, who is up against a virtual avalanche of dirty money from GOP hedge fund billionaires and Paul Ryan (over $4 million) with the DCCC kicking in just over $600,000, nothing like the massive $2,651,421 for the Republican-voting Gallego. (Please tap on the thermometer on the right to help the progressive candidates who won their primaries in winnable districts but who the DCCC refuses to assist at all.)

As you can see from the DCCC ad, they have nothing positive to say about Gallego-- what could they say... that he's a bankster amigo or an opponent of everything Democrats expect from a congressman?-- and instead just attack his opponent for not denouncing Trump clearly enough. The DCCC has a similar ad they rolled out yesterday on behalf of New Dem Terri Bonoff (MN), who they've already spent $1,808,005 on. This one attacks Erik Paulsen who didn't disavow Trump until after the "grab-her-by-the-pussy" tape came out.

.

3 Wall Street-Owned New Dems Face Rematches

Teabagger Robert Lowry poses with realistic Ted Cruz blow-up doll

Everyone is probably relieved there won't be a Patrick Murphy-Alan West rematch, but next year a handful of New Dems almost as bad as Murphy are going to have to face the Republican ex-congressmember they beat in 2012.
Actually, Sean Patrick Maloney has an even worse voting record than Murphy. In fact, Maloney, who does his call-time from the office of a sleazy hedge fund in Manhattan, has the single worst voting record of any Democratic freshman-- yes, generally worse than Sinema and Gallego. He votes even more conservatively than the DCCC recommends. Not a very astute man, he thinks conservatives will vote for him because he's almost as conservative as a Republican. That won't happen and now that Democrats know he isn't really one of them, the base that elected him in 2012 isn't likely to turn out for him next year. Maloney's district, NY-18-- all of Orange County, all of Putnam County and parts of Dutchess and Westchester counties-- has an even PVI (one of only 9 in the nation) and he beat incumbent Nan Hayworth last year (143,845 to 133,049) largely because Obama turned out the voters. Obama beat Romney in NY-18 149,610 to 137,144. In the last race Maloney spent $2,246,008 to Hayworth's $3,254,072 (which included $110,033 from her personal fortune). This cycle she's expected to spend a lot more of her own cash, although she hasn't reported raising anything yet and Maloney, a notorious Wall Street whore, has already brought in $1,362,653 (64% from big donations and 28% from PACs). And he's already taken $76,050 from Wall Street, which is reflected in one of the most pro-Wall Street voting records of any Member of Congress. Last week, for example, he voted with the Republicans to exempt private equity fund investment advisers from its registration and reporting requirements. His sole claim to being "progressive" is that he's gay and married with adopted children. It's a profoundly false claim on progressivism and the only thing that could possibly keep him in office is what a horrible candidate Hayworth is.

Another really bad New Dem facing the Republican he beat in 2012 is Brad Schneider (IL-10, a carefully gerrymandered district north of Chicago that was redrawn specifically to elect Democrats). Like Maloney, Schneider is a Wall Street whore who also voted last week with Republicans for that same dreadful exemption for private equity fund investment advisers. Last year, Obama won IL-10 157,400 (58%) to 112,552 (41%) but Dold nearly held onto the seat anyway. Schneider was clearly saved by Obama's coattails, barely beating Dold 133,890 (51%) to 130,564 (49%). Last year Dold outspent Schneider $4,543,049 to $3,029,605. So far Schneider has raised $1,144,430. At the end of September, Dold reported he had $819,000 in the bank, slightly more than Schneider's $767,000 cash on hand. This is a real toss-up.

Another extremely conservative New Dem-- and Blue Dog-- is Pete Gallego and he may or may not face the very flawed Republican he beat in 2012, Francisco “Quico” Canseco. I'm sure he hopes he does. The Republican Party Establishment, on the other hand, opposes Conseco and is reluctantly backing an ex-CIA agent, Will Hurd (after failing to recruit a more plausible opponent to Gallego).

TX-23, the biggest district in the state (23% of Texas, 29 counties), is a long stretch of border country between San Antonio's western suburbs and El Paso. 70% of the people there are Hispanic, although last year Romney won 51-48%, around the same margin that Obama won it in 2008. The PVI is R+3, but that index is backward-looking and the district is getting bluer. Last year Gallego actually outpolled Obama, winning against Canseco 96,676 (50%) to 87,547 (46%). Canseco beat Hurd in 2010 but the NRCC didn't want him to run again and trued recruiting Rolando Pablos, a Rick Perry crony who declined to run. But the GOP doesn't acknowledge that what makes Canseco so weak in this Hispanic and military-oriented district-- even against an incumbent as lame and incompetent as Gallego-- is that he opposed both comprehensive immigration reform and the Dream Act and voted for sequestration that caused unpaid furloughs and hundreds of millions of dollars in lost wages for defense employees, a much bigger deal in the San Antonio area than almost anywhere else in America. The third GOP loser in the primary is a fringy Ron Paul backer who is being backed by the Tea Party (and potheads), Robert Lowry.

Corrupt House Agriculture Committee Slashes Food Stamps Unmercifully-- With Help From Ann Kuster

Last year, the Blue Dogs only managed to elect one mangy freshman, homophobic conservative Texas state Rep. Pete Gallego. Obama beat McCain in his district (TX-23) 50-49% in 2008 and Romney beat Obama this last time, 51-48%. Gallego managed to edge weak GOP freshman Francisco "Quico" Canseco 96,477 (50%) to 87,255 (46%), after beating Ciro Rodriguez in a primary runoff in this heavily Hispanic district that hugs the Rio Grande border with Mexico from just north of Laredo to just south of El Paso.

Thursday morning I wasn't surprised to see Gallego tweeting away how on Wednesday night he had voted in the House Agriculture Committee-- long, one of the bastions of Blue Dog corporate corruption-- for a $940 billion bipartisan new Farm Bill. I rolled my eyes and wondered how bad it would be. It was bad and cuts nearly two million poor people off food stamps, a top GOP priority that Blue Dogs tend to support.

The bill would cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) by almost $21 billion over the next decade, eliminating food assistance to nearly 2 million low-income people, mostly working families with children and senior citizens.  The bill as a whole would reduce total farm bill spending by an estimated $39.7 billion over ten years, so more than half of its cuts come from SNAP.  The SNAP cuts are more than $4 billion larger than those included in last year’s House Agriculture Committee bill.

The bill’s SNAP cuts would come on top of an across-the-board reduction in benefits that every SNAP recipient will experience starting November 1, 2013.  On that date, the increase in SNAP benefits established by the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) will end, resulting in a loss of approximately $25 in monthly SNAP benefits for a family of four.  Placing the SNAP cuts in this farm bill on top of the benefit cuts that will take effect in November is likely to put substantial numbers of poor families at risk of food insecurity.

The majority of the bill’s SNAP cuts come from eliminating a state option known as “categorical eligibility.”  Congress created this option in the 1996 welfare law, allowing states to provide food assistance to households-- primarily low-income working families and seniors-- that have gross incomes or assets modestly above federal SNAP limits but disposable incomes in most cases below the poverty line.  The bill also would eliminate SNAP incentive payments to states that have improved payment accuracy and service delivery, would cut nutrition education funding, and would curtail a state option that reduces paperwork for many households with utility expenses and also lowers state administrative costs...

The proposed cuts would cause significant hardship to several million low-income households.

Jim McGovern (D-MA) introduced an amendment to protect the food stamps funding but it was defeated 27-17, after Juan Vargas (D-CA), embarrassed Republican hypocrites by quoting the Book of Matthew in opposing them: "When I was hungry you gave me food. When I was thirsty, you gave me drink." Watch the an especially telling part of the debate from delusional right-wing psychopath Steve King (R-IA):



The two highest ranking Democrats on the Committee, Blue Dog scum Collin Peterson (MN) and Mike McIntyre (NC) plus millionaire New Dem Sean Patrick Maloney (NY)-- each of whom are on Steve Israel's Frontline list to receive millions of dollars from the DCCC next year-- voted with the GOP, not just for the overall bill, but against McGovern's amendment. The Agriculture Committee is a stinking cesspool of corruption and an institutional organ of shillery for corporate agribusiness. That they passed a wretched bill doesn't surprise me in the least. With just a precious few exceptions who try to protect family farms and consumers-- basically Marcia Fudge, Jim McGovern, Joe Courtney, Richard Nolan and John Garamendi, the committee is all about crooks who want to line their pockets. “In this Congress," Garamendi told his California constituents, "when push comes to shove, it’s the voiceless that get shoved the most. We’re seeing that in the sequester with the immediate harm befalling Head Start, Meals-on-Wheels, and housing assistance, and we’re now seeing it with steep cuts to SNAP in the Farm Bill. SNAP puts food on the table for homebound seniors, for kids who would otherwise go to bed hungry, and for hardworking Americans barely making it. I wish it were a little more kind to the people who need help the most and I will work with my colleagues on the Committee to find a way to ensure the final bill does just that. In a country where 16 million children don’t have enough food to eat, we can and must do better.”

The 8 Democrats who voted NO on the final bill were David Scott (GA), Marcia Fudge (OH), Jim McGovern (MA), Gloria Negrete McLeod (CA), Filemon Vela (TX), Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM), Juan Vargas (CA) and Joe Courtney (CT). I was disappointed, though hardly surprised, to see Ann Kuster (NH), once again on the Dark Side, selling out the progressives who helped win her her seat. Kuster's callous and disgusting attitude went out in a cheery press release about how great she is yesterday:

“Last night’s vote was an important step forward for farmers, consumers, and rural communities in New Hampshire and across our country. For too long, Congress has kicked the can down the road and failed to provide long-term authorization for vital agricultural, nutrition, and conservation programs. Our government’s failure to pass a Farm Bill last year added uncertainty to our economy, inhibiting investments in job creation, research, and rural infrastructure.

“Republicans and Democrats owe it to the American people to break the gridlock and find common ground, which is why I supported this bill-- despite its deep cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. I am gravely disappointed that this legislation undermines assistance for hungry families, and I fought hard to protect this essential program. At the same time, this Farm Bill contains many important reforms: it eliminates wasteful direct payment subsidies, streamlines more than 100 duplicative programs, and includes both an amendment I sponsored to support rural colleges and an amendment I cosponsored to expand access to local, healthy food.

I sure hope someone primaries her.