Wednesday, February 25, 2009
NELSON DISAPPOINTED WITH POLITICS AS USUAL
February 25, 2009 – Nebraska's Senator Ben Nelson said today that he is disappointed in another example of politics as usual in Washington.
Earlier today a national cable network criticized Senator Nelson for seeking what it termed a "porky" earmark "to fight flies in Nebraska."
"Partisan mudslingers love to distort and mischaracterize issues far more than they respect the truth or the facts," Senator Nelson said.
Here, he said, are the facts:
- The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 appropriates $866,000 to continue funding Stable Fly research at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Senator Nelson has not pursued additional funding. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, he objected to a presidential budget proposal to move the research from Nebraska.
- The University of Nebraska-Lincoln has conducted Stable Fly research for years, funded annually through the U.S. Department of Agriculture budget. Last year, the Bush administration’s 2009 budget proposed a major change for the research location, to Texas where stable flies are not a major problem for livestock.
- This research at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln addresses a serious issue and has broad support among the Nebraska cattle industry. The purpose of the research is to find ways to manage a major problem within the cattle industry. When stable flies are abundant they bite cattle. This irritation results in cattle spending less time feeding and ultimately in reduced weight gain and decreased milk production in dairy cattle because the cattle stop eating - creating an obvious and serious problem for all cattlemen.
- According to research at UNL, cattle experience 20% less weight gain and experience 30-40% reduction in milk production due specifically to Stable Fly biting. Also, according to UNL, estimated economic impacts for annual cattle production losses and control costs per year in Nebraska are $50-$70 million and nationally, $1-$2 billion.
- This research occurs at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, but results are valued across the nation.
"Funding allocations for each department of government are set by Congress,” said Nelson. “Of that, 99 percent of the money is spent by bureaucrats in the comfort of federal agency buildings, behind closed doors.
"Meanwhile, about 1 percent is allocated to local needs by the elected officials who are responsible to constituents, and know the local needs best. These funds are earmarked with transparency and accountability on Capitol Hill.
"Critics of such earmarks are often motivated by political agendas," Nelson added. "Eliminating Congress’ role in directing spending would virtually guarantee that funds would go to politically powerful and wealthy big states, while little would go to less populated rural states.
"The haves would get everything, and everyone else would get nothing. That’s the truth."
###
Search: Earmarks, Rural Affairs, Agriculture, Farmers and Ranchers, Press