The reason the Club for Growth is an issue in Nebraska is because among the many standard conservative economic stances they seek to advance (make Bush tax cuts permanents, eliminate estate tax, etc) they also advocate abolishing both the Department of Agriculture and farm subsidies.
Now, it is obvious why this position would be important in NE-03. Agriculture is their lifeblood and subsidies are a large part of that. However, the Club's endorsement for Allen got me wondering what kind of economic damage removing farm subsidies would cause here in Virginia.
I did a little research and found out that Virginia received almost $1 billion dollars in agricultural subsidies from 1995-2004. Pilgrim's Pride in Virginia received over $15 million in 2002 alone. That is money that keeps family farms afloat and keeps Virginian's employed.
Considering the fact that Allen makes a habit of putting his donors needs above those of his constituents, I wonder how rural Virginian's would feel about the Club for Growth's endorsement. I would hope they would want to ask Allen some serious questions. Does Allen want to eliminate the Department of Agriculture? (Look for many more E. coli outbreaks if this happens.) Does he want to eliminate subsidies that help Virginia's farmers and agriculture-based businesses?
The Club for Growth PAC's endorsement shows that rural Virginian's who depend on agriculture cannot depend on George Allen to look out for their best interests.
