I received this from his lordship the Senator from PA:
Dear Mr. Me,
Thank you for sharing with me your support for the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) conservation programs. I appreciate hearing from you.
I value your input on USDA conservation programs and the important role they play in protecting the environment. As you know, these programs are important to farmers and their communities. That said, our nation is facing a $1.5 trillion deficit, and the President's latest budget proposal continues this unsustainable path for years to come. All areas of government spending must be carefully examined so that we can put our nation on a path toward fiscal solvency. Inevitably, tough choices will have to be made, and making such choices is something that I have promised to the people of Pennsylvania. Now that the Fiscal Year 2012 budget process is underway, please be assured that I will keep your views about these USDA programs in mind.
Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Pat Toomey
U.S. Senator, Pennsylvania
My response below the fold...
Senator,
I recently received your response to my earlier e-mail regarding the importance of continued funding for USDA conservation programs as well as increased funding for sustainable farming practices which reduce the need for petrochemical based pesticides and fertilizers.
I can appreciate your concern regarding the overall federal debt, but I don't understand your reasoning that would appear to put expenditures with a substantial return on investment for taxpayers on the chopping block before expenditures that go primarily to large corporate farms.
If the financial situation is so dire, then I also am at a loss for your multiple votes opposing the ending of various forms of subsidies for hugely profitable fossil fuel companies as well as your persistent votes against asking individuals and families with incomes exceeding $1M/year to contribute even an additional .5% of their incomes ABOVE $1M towards deficit reduction.
As a (very) small business owner who has over the years networked and worked with hundreds of other small business owners, I know well that not a one had after company expenses income in the $500k range let alone $1M, so I completely discount the claim that a small increase in taxes on millionaires and billionaires would have any negative impact on job creation.
I am similarly quite certain that should the Federal government increase spending in areas, such as conservation and fostering sustainable farming practices, that money would generate jobs which in turn would increase the money available for purchases from small businesses who would, facing increased demand for their goods and services in turn hire more people who would, in turn, be in a position to purchase goods they have had to put off, etc.
The clarity of the economic implications of these different policy choices is such that I can only conclude that there are reasons completely different than those you have stated for the votes and positions you have taken. If I am wrong, I would appreciate a substantive response demonstrating exactly how that is the case.
Best regards,
Me
Needless to say, I won't hold my breath.