I'm a Republican, but she is working hard for the farmer," and that is more important than politics, Hanselman said.
This recent quote in an upstate paper says a lot about the state of the country. 
It belies the fundamental misunderstanding that Congresswoman Gillibrand has about economics and the value she places on politics. As a good libertarian it doesn't require too much digging to find elucidation of why subsidies and price controls don't work. Not that they are bad per se or justified based on some other valuation or purpose. Simply that they don't work.
Rather than being competitive or innovative, farmers are rewarded for their lack of ability to compete. Just as New York favors some businesses over others by providing special incentives and tax breaks, so to does Congress mettle in the business of the local farm.
I've actually been on dairy farms in the district and know first hand what challenges they face on a daily level and a broader economic field of play. What gets glossed over in these types of stories is that places like California that do enjoy economies of scale are better suited to deliver milk at a lower more competitive price based on resource consolidation and market innovations.Political heart strings are often tugged in order to generate sympathy for the family farmer rather than accept the occasional market failure as a consequence of a fairness in open competition.
A buddy of mine who is a large animal Vet left NY a few years ago because opportunities at bigger facilities out West were greater than the average struggling upstate farmer. The practice he was at in NY also struggled because these farmers also suffered for various reasons. As I am sympathetic to these farmers, I also do not feel that consumers and taxpayers should suffer if these services can exist within a thriving open market environment. This is pure politics, all the doublespeak in the world cannot gloss over that.
Reason Online provided a nice set of links describing the history of price controls on milk.