There are things to dislike about McCain--and, again, when I have enough clear time to address it properly, I’ll spend it explaining my view on voting in the upcoming election--but we need to remember that there are things to appreciate about the man, too. Like this, for instance.

Wisconsin has received a half billion dollars—more than twice as much as any other state—from a federal subsidy meant to help out dairy farmers struggling with low milk prices.

Should farmers keep that safety net? Both Democratic presidential candidates think so.

In a tough 2004 re-election fight, Republican President Bush said he, too, would support renewing the program in spite of its cost to taxpayers. But this year ‘s GOP frontrunner, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, says he can ‘t do that.

“At a time when Americans must work four months a year just to pay their taxes, John McCain cannot support farm policies that are too costly for the taxpayer, particularly when they also play a negative role in encouraging farmers to rely on government subsidies, “ McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said of the dairy subsidy.

In an election year, it takes guts to tell a group of voters that you won’t support their particular sacred cow (sorry, had to).

I’m sure that a President McCain would introduce new spending--I’ve never seen a president that didn’t--but I think he would be the first in a long time to do his best to downsize some of the market-distorting subsidies and programs that have grown out of government’s good intentions. He certainly wouldn’t be as reliable Ron Paul in trying to squash the old order, but he would be a damned site better than anyone else still in the running.

And, as for the article’s assertion that it is “a federal subsidy meant to help out dairy farmers struggling with low milk prices,” well, that’s only half the truth. The full truth is that agricultural subsidies largely seem to exist to keep prices low so that consumers feel good about their grocery-buying experience and American farmers remain competitive with their counterparts around the world. Without subsidies and protectionist trade policies, we consumers might have a better idea of the real value of foods in the world.

Of course, since the subsidies come out of taxes, most consumers are paying higher costs than we notice--the more taxes you pay, the more likely it is that you are subsidizing cheap milk for other families. As an act of charity, that seems like a nice thing, but as an act of distorting our view of the value of a thing, I would suggest that the actual cost of a gallon of milk in the United States is almost impossible to calculate.

I’m going to speak a little heresy here: I’m fine, for now, with tax rates. I want to see all the tax cuts from this Bush era made permanent, but I’m not personally looking for any more cuts. What I want to see from the next President of the United States is someone who will tackle spending issues. Entitlement reform and an overhaul of the ridiculous bureaucratic that drain money from our coffers is what we need right now. More tax cuts won’t gift us with long-term economic well-being right now: but solving the problems of Social Security, Medicare, and government bloat would take us in the right direction.

Again, McCain is the only candidate remaining (Ron Paul notwithstanding--and, honestly, Paul doesn’t figure much in any rational debate about who will be the next president) who is likely to work toward that goal. Many people find his answer about why he opposed the Bush tax cuts (that those cuts weren’t supported by spending cuts) to be a sign of how he strayed from the conservative base; I personally find the argument persuasive. Government spending must be cut for the economic health of the nation.

Read the rest.