Category Archives: Welfare

Good Friday Report

Posted on by

I apologize for not posting yesterday. I had a dental appointment and didn’t get home until late in the day.

***

For millions of Christians, today is a day of remembrance. Some ignorantly claim it’s a celebration. It is not. It’s an acknowledgment of debt to one who paid all for all of us. The celebration is on Easter. The unchurched and ignorant dcann’t discern the difference between the two days.

This blog, however, is political rather than religious. In many cases, the two views are in alignment. In one such arena is the choice of mass welfare. On one hand many claim that we should support those in need. I doubt anyone would argue against that. However, many of those in ‘need’ are not. They are in a situation of their own making and refuse to extricate themselves from that situation. They depend on the largess of others while doing nothing to better themselves, to remove themselves from a life of parasitism. Generations subsist in such environments and blame others for their own failings.

Those of us of a conservative bent prefer to help those who are willing to accept that help to better their livelihood, to better their skills in search of employment, to work, study, learn, to educate themselves so they need not be dependent on the charity of others. We had a small victory in the Missouri Senate this week. An attempt to extend dependency in Missouri, to bolster the cult of parasitism failed in Jeff City.

Missouri Senate defeats proposal to expand Medicaid

Mar 31, 11:33 PM CDT

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri senators have defeated a proposal to expand eligibility for Medicaid.

The Senate on Tuesday voted 25-9 against the measure.

Democratic Sen. Paul LeVota proposed adding the amendment to a bill that would ensure the state continues to receive certain funding for Medicaid.

The vote follows rallies in the Capitol and across the state calling on lawmakers to debate expanding the joint federal and state health care program for low-income residents.

States can receive additional funding for raising eligibility under Democratic President Barack Obama’s health care law.

But Missouri’s Republican legislative leaders have called the measure a nonstarter.

This amendment should be a nonstarter. The democrats ignore one extremely important proviso of Obama’s assistance—it’s temporary. And when the subsidies expire, Missouri will be left holding the bag for ALL the costs of the medicaid expansion. Why? Because Medicaid is a primary component of Obamacare. The feds, by themselves, cannot pay for the enormous costs of Obamacare. They need to steal from us to do so…one way or another. Expanding medicaid is one such scheme.

***

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed legislation yesterday permitting concealed carry by Kansas residents without a permit. Existing Kansas concealed carry permits will still issued as before to allow Kansans to carry out-of-state where the Kansas CCW permit is recognized.

A similar bill has been filed in Jefferson City. It too would allow concealed carry without a permit while retaining the existing CCW permit structure. The bill was filed late in this year’s session but it is being sponsored by well-known supporters. The bill, along with allowing CCW on public transportation was heard in committee this week.

***

In local news, the liberals in Kansas City, lead by Mayor Sly James, are proposing to raise the city’s minimum wage to $15 and hour. Seattle did so last year and the results are in—restaurants are failing and closing all over the city. Sly James would like to do the same to Kansas City—kill jobs and close businesses.

Many of Kansas City’s business owners are unaware of this proposal. During my visit to the dentist yesterday, he said he had just given his assistant a raise to $9 and hour. I told him that soon he’d have to raise her to $15 an hour if Sly James had his way. He was unaware that could happen. He’s a small businessman employing just three people. Wages and salaries are a significant portion of his business expense. A sudden increase in his cost of doing business could put him in dire constraints!

He asked if they knew of the consequences of such an increase. “How could anyone be so stupid?” he asked.

And stupid it is. The increase wouldn’t hit just the food industry. It would affect many small businesses like my dentist as well as large organizations…like the Kansas City School District.

Many (most?) of the school districts para-professionals are only paid $8-9 and hour. They would be affected too and the increase would bust the already horribly large school district budget. According to the Kansas City district’s payroll data, the increase of the minimum wage would affect 1,447 employees of the district who are currently paid less than $15 and hour. How many of these employees would have to be laid off?

This situation is what we’ve come to expect from the incompetency of the left. Money appears whenever they want it from an overflowing pot of money that is magically extracted from…somewhere. Taxpayers however, know who is the source of this rapacious demand for more and more money—democrats.

 

Facebook

The Rime…

Posted on by
Ah! well a-day! what evil looks
Had I from old and young!
Instead of the cross, the Albatross
About my neck was hung.
— The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Part II, Stanza 14.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Obama must be feeling as if he were that Ancient Mariner, who killed the Albatross and was condemned to wear its dead body around his neck. The difference is that Obama’s Albatross is Obamacare.

Some statistics were published today that is another weight, another burden, around Obama’s political agenda. Statistics, such as:

OBAMACARE POLL: THEY’VE TRIED IT AND THEY DON’T LIKE IT
Fifty percent of voters disapprove of ObamaCare, 43 percent strongly so, according to a poll out from the budget hawk group Public Notice. The survey, conducted by Tarrance Group, found that while 40 percent of respondents approved of the health law, a majority of key groups disapprove including women ages 18 to 44 (51 percent), employees of small businesses (57 percent), adults in households with children (56 percent) and voters who’ve tried to shop on ObamaCare Web sites (52 percent). The poll also showed that Members of Congress who voted for the president’s law are getting a negative reaction from voters, with 43 percent saying they less likely to re-elect those who voted for the health law versus 38 percent who are more likely to vote for their member if he or she voted for ObamaCare. — FOX Newsletter, 12-10-2013.

The critical issue is the age groups in the poll above. These groups are the demographic segment that Obama was planning on soaking to pay for his monstrosity. Now, they are opting out, refusing to play Obama’s game, a game he is losing badly.

But that isn’t the only damaging news about Obamacare. As we move closer to the implementation date, more failings of Obamacare are emerging. This time for prescription drugs—the list of covered drugs has been slashed. Many of us, forced onto Medicare, take maintenance drugs. Some are to control cholesterol, some to control blood pressure, plus many others. Now, with the list of covered drugs slashed, Obamacare and Medicare participants must pay for those drugs out of their pockets. Plus, for Obamacare enrollees, those out-of-pocket costs cannot be charged to your deductible.

OBAMACARE PAIN PILL
Dr. Scott Gottlieb, former senior policy adviser to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services told Megyn Kelly that many prescriptions may not be covered under ObamaCare. “The list of drugs that the plans cover, in many cases, aren’t very long.  And if the drugs aren’t covered you’re on your own, you basically have to pay for it entirely out of pocket, and the money that you spend on those drugs doesn’t count against your out of pocket limit or against your deductible,” Gottlieb said. “This could cost patients who need special drugs a lot of money, literally tens of thousands of dollars a year.” — FOX Newsletter, 12-10-2013.

***

What a disappointment Paul Ryan has turned out to be. He ran in the last election, as a conservative, a tax conservative and a spending conservative. His current budget plan, with democrat Senator Patty Murray, exposes the lies he spoke during that campaign.

The Big Spenders Return

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  December 10th, 2013 at 04:30 AM

If Paul Ryan were a Peanuts character, he’d be the guy who pulls the football out of the way just as he himself is about to kick it. Over the past number of years, Congressman Ryan has come up with a few reform proposals.

From his roadmap to this, he has made as his starting point for negotiations that which should be his ending point.

Now, with liberal Senator Patty Murray, Congressman Ryan wants to raise spending today on the promise that Congress will restrain itself ten years from now (or whenever the benchmark will be). It’s a return to pre-sequestration Washington — spending increases today in exchange for promises of spending cuts later.

I opposed sequestration at the time the GOP came up with it. I figured they’d do an end run around it. But they did not. Surprisingly, they stuck with it if only because they couldn’t figure out a way to undermine it without rocking the boat with their base.

Now it’s looking like they are prepared to rock that boat.

The Democrats have repeated painted doom and gloom scenarios about sequestration. They said it would undermine economic growth, but the latest economic figures dispute that. They said it would cause increased unemployment, but the latest employment numbers dispute that. They’ve said a great deal, all of which has been nonsensical hyperbole.

Based on what has been reported so far, the Ryan-Murray plan seems like outright capitulation to the big spending, big government agenda of both parties’ lobbyist class. In fact, the op-eds already coming out for it are being written by those who stand to profit from more spending.

Congress should start at sequestration spending levels and reduce spending from there — not raise revenue and not raise spending. After all, like Obamacare, sequestration is the law of the land too.

A sellout in any form, is still a sellout. Actions like this, Ryan’s betrayal of his Tea Party supporters, makes me wonder if there are ANY national politicians, Cruz, Lee and a handful of others excepted, who are not traitors to their constituents?

Here is a link to another report on the Paul Ryan-Patty Murray Tax and Spend bill. It’s very informative.

***

If you watch the news coming out of the Middle-east, you may have come across this article, the possible creation of strange allies, Saudi Arabia and…Israel! Neither country wants a nuclear Iran on their borders.

Saudis to Obama: We Will Not Tolerate a Nuclear Iran

By Karin McQuillan, December 10, 2013

Individuals who have even visited Israel, or who observe Judaism, or who carry a Bible are banned from Saudi Arabia.  Yet Saudi Arabia’s Israel-hating King Abdullah just flew in an Israeli scientist to have dinner with him, to enjoy some royal hospitality, accept a medal and the $200,000 “Arab Nobel Prize.”  It’s a not-so-subtle message to President Obama: the unthinkable can happen, so don’t assume the Saudis won’t join with Israel to bomb Iran.

Obama’s new Iran policy moves the Mid-East closer to war over oil and religion — Sunni Saudis versus Shia Iranians.  There is no more strategic commodity than Gulf oil to the entire world economy.  American national security stakes could not be higher.   Iran’s end game, some say more than an attack on Israel, is to seize the Saudi oil fields.  There is a Shiite majority in the oil province that the Saudi Princes fear could be turned by Iran.  The Saudis no longer see the U.S. as an ally in stabilizing the Middle East.  We have become a force for chaos. The UK Telegraph:

Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review, said the great unknown is how Saudi Arabia will react to a move deemed treachery in Riyadh… The great question is whether they can live with this deal, or whether it is intolerable,” he said.

Mr Skrebowski said the Middle East is a tinder box, in the grip of a Sunni-Shia civil war comparable in ideological ferocity to the clash between Catholics and Protestants in early 17th Century Europe. Saudi Arabia has already shown how far it will go to protect its interests, helping to overthrow Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.

The Saudis are signaling that they will unleash a pre-emptive war in the Middle East in response to Obama’s nuclear capitulation to Iran.  These signals are an effort to change Obama’s decision to prop up the mullahs and green light their nuclear program.  Can the Saudi threats become real?  It’s a wild card our President is willing to play.

The column continues, here, at the American Spectator website.

The Obama administration, acting as if by design, is alienating our friends and allies. If Obama’s plan is to isolate the United States from our friends around the world, he is being extremely successful. That’s is Obama’s only agenda item that is working.

Facebook

Poverty in America

Posted on by

I was listening to the opening segment of Dave Ramsey’s radio program this morning when I heard him describe some criticism he has been receiving. These critics claim Ramsey is a fraud, hates poor people and is a tool of the “moneyed” people, whatever that is.

Their position is that capitalism is the root of the country’s ills, that capitalism purposely keeps people in poverty so that “moneyed” people can control everything. It was reminiscent of the union and socialist talking points that I’ve seen over the years.

My observations over the last forty plus years as an adult is contrary to those talking points. The Poverty Line didn’t exist when I was growing up. That was a creation of Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. Since that time, the government has spent trillions, yes that’s right, trillions with a T, on poverty and it still exists in higher levels than before.

Why is this so?

To a very large extent, in my opinion, it is cultural. The history of this country, until the middle of the 20th Century, was based on entrepreneurship. People worked to acquire assets and capital that was, in turn, used to bootstrap a business, an enterprise, a homestead, a dream that lead to prosperity and increased wealth. Many, many were successful. Just look at the winners of the 19th and 20th centuries. They were, are numerous.

Many also failed.

Some, who chose to be homesteader, failed due to disease and weather. The drought and subsequent dust storms of the 1930s is one example. The blizzards covering the northern prairie states in the late 19th century ruined ranches large and small.

Some of those who failed, tried again and succeeded. The farmers who lost their farms in the Dust Bowl, migrated to California and other states and were known as “Okies,” migrant workers moving from one agricultural job to another.

Others, quit. With FDR’s New Deal, some realized they didn’t have to support themselves, others, the government, would do that and that realization was the beginning of America’s welfare state, a  shift in American Culture which fed today’s welfare state.

But, even today, those in poverty need not remain there. The tools exist to allow anyone, with sufficient motivation, to rise out of poverty and to succeed. The obvious tool is education. When I was young and in school, we were taught basics: reading and comprehension, writing and grammar including composition—writing clearly, arithmetic and math, history, geography and natural sciences. But most of all, we were taught how to teach ourselves.

As bad as our current education policies are, it is still possible for an individual to rise above their economic level and succeed—but now without work and personal investment. That is where our dependency culture is failing us.

When I was in school, we had a number of students whose parents were on “relief.” I personally knew some of them. I played with their children, visited them at their home, rode the same bus to school, I knew them and their entire family intimately. The differences between their families and mine were unbelievable to one who had not known both of us.

My family was average for that time and place. My father worked as a coal miner and part-time farmer (I did more farm work when in school than did he), my mother was an elementary school teach as was my older married sister. We also owned a small farm and raised most of our food. We weren’t rich, nor had a lot of money, but we did have something else—a desire to succeed. I was raised in that culture.

The other family was raised in a different culture. My school friends never took school work home. Their parents, outside of a small garden, had no income other than relief payments from the government. When their allotment of relief ended, they would find some job and keep it long enough to qualify for relief once again. It was a cyclic existence. If their children brought school work home, it was destroyed or if the parent found any school textbooks, those text books were sold for whatever value could be received. Their culture determined that education was a hindrance to life—on relief…welfare as we call it now.

That dependency culture has grown over the decades. It need not continue. The tools to fight it still exists—education, learning how to learn, teaching oneself new skills, skills that can lead to a job, the basis of economic freedom. The path is there.

How does this work? Basically, get a job. Acquire, through education, self-education, work, skills that youj will be paid a wage or salary for exercising those skills. Learn more skills, gain expertise, and find a better paying job, or create a new business with those skills. Then, as your business grows, with your hard work and enterprise, you hire employees who have skills you need. The cycle continues.

The critics scoff at this idea. “All the wealth is controlled by a few! No one new can join them.” That is the basis of Keynesian Economics: wealth cannot be created nor destroyed.” Wealth must be controlled for the betterment of all. Wealth must be taken from those who have it, and given to those who do not.

Later versions of Keynesian Theory were based on the Zero-sum game theory. Nothing, wealth, can be added nor removed from a system, just manipulated internally. Poverty is created because the wealthy have acquired all the wealth—a view of economics is easily refuted.

In the 19th and early 20th Century, our currency was based on gold and silver standards. Gold backed the currency. On the face of each bill was the statement, “Redeemable in gold/silver.” Our currency was not Federal Reserve notes, backed by the federal government, but Silver and Gold Certificates redeemable by the appropriate metal. If you didn’t have sufficient gold, or silver, you mined more. Wealth, actual wealth in silver and gold in this case, grew. The economy grew, people gained jobs, saved, and created new jobs. Poverty was diminished.

We no longer have a currency based on gold or silver. Our economy has outgrown the available quantities of gold and silver. We do have a currency based on work. We have the tools available to anyone with the will to use them. Poverty will not cease in America due to the dependency culture. But, we need not feed that culture. Poverty is not a lack of money, wealth, it is a cultural affliction.

Those who are mired in it, can escape. All it takes is the will to do so, and by doing so, escape the trap of dependency created by progressive, socialistic economic thought and policies.

 

Facebook

A review of the failed farm bill

Posted on by

I was reading about the under-the-table tactics used to pass the House farm bill. Why, specifically, the usual tactic of ‘logrolling’ didn’t work as it has before. The best explanation comes from this quote.

The failure of the farm-bill charade, even if a temporary setback for the big spenders, is encouraging. Some 62 Republicans were willing to buck their leadership and reject business as usual, which must change. House leaders can start by coming back with two bills to be considered individually on their own merits. — The Washington Times.

Another problem is that some members of the House Agriculture committee have conflicts of interest. Some of those committee members, like our own Vicky Hartzler (R, MO-4), have family farms that would directly benefit from the crop subsidies. In any other endeavor, such a conflict would bar her from being a member on the committee.  But…we’re talking government, here, where peonage and corruption afflicts both parties equally.

The Washington Times article does point out one interesting facet of the maneuvering to pass the bill. Old, well used and familiar tactics failed.

The blame for out-of-control federal spending belongs mostly on logrolling, the practice of congressmen trading positions on controversial issues to pass a bill. Sometimes it doesn’t work. The farm bill crashed Thursday in the House by 195 votes for, 234 against.

…

Other than the fact that farmers grow food, it doesn’t make sense to have food stamps and related welfare programs lumped in with, for example, dairy subsidies. Rep. Marlin Stutzman, Indiana Republican and a fourth-generation farmer, tried unsuccessfully to sever the two components into separate bills, where each could get the legislative scrutiny it deserves.

Mr. Stutzman made his case to the House Rules Committee on Tuesday. “The American people deserve an open and honest debate about farm and nutrition policy in this country,” said the congressman. “The only way that will happen is if we separate farm policy from nutrition policy.”

The panel decided not to let the House vote whether to divide the bill, as the pairing of the farm and food stamp bills was thought to be the key to final passage. Republicans from rural districts would vote for the farm subsidies to benefit their constituents, and liberal Democrats would vote for more food stamps. Logrolling requires maintaining spending high to keep both sides happy, which is a very bad thing for the taxpayers who pay for the compromise, usually through the nose. — The Washington Times.

So the Ag Committee relied on ‘business-as-usual’ to pass the bloated monstrosity. They failed to consider the opposition of the real ‘Pub conservatives and of the rabid “Spend! Spend! Spend!” dems who want to bribe constituents to continue to vote for their party. Whether the committee members passed a bill that would line their own pockets or if they voted to pass a bill to continue and expand welfare dependency, none of the committee members had the best interest of the country in mind.

We can thank those 62 ‘Pub conservatives who were willing to buck their party leadership for the failure of this piece of legislative trash.

Good on ya!

Facebook

Welfare, Corporate Payoffs and Pork.

Posted on by

Today’s blog title would imply democrat policies. You’d be wrong. It refers to the GOP’s House Farm Bill championed by Speaker John Boehner and our own Vicky Hartzler.

Both the Senate democrats and House ‘Pubs have Farm Bills. The Senate rammed theirs past GOp opposition and brags they’ve cut the $1Trillion bill to $500Billion. The House GOP claims their version has cut more.

The crux is SNAP, or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. What is SNAP? Food stamps. SNAP is 80% of the cost of the Farm Bill. The supporters of the House version brag they’ve cut the Food Stamp (SNAP) program as well. How much? Three percent. Three lousy percent.

The dems and ‘Pubs are wrangling over—not the actual farm and agricultural portions of the bill, small that they are. No, they’re fighting over SNAP! If SNAP is so critical, it should be removed from the Farm Bill and stand for itself.

Some have advocated a change, one that I can accept IF food stamps are really necessary, is to convert the entire program to block grants and let the states create their own version of food/welfare assistance. In blue states, the money would line democrat pols pocket. Oh well, the blue staters get the government they vote for.

For the moment, dems and ‘Pubs are apparently in a race to see who can waste more of our tax money.

Farm bill cuts judged both too much, not enough

By Tom Howell Jr. – The Washington Times, Monday, June 17, 2013

A year after they failed to pass a farm bill and suffered for it in several big congressional races, House Republicans think they’ve finally got the right balance to fund agricultural programs while weaning more Americans off food stamp benefits.

Speaker John A. Boehner has thrown his weight behind bringing this year’s bill to the chamber floor, and debate kicks off on Tuesday.

But House GOP leaders will have to bridge divides within the GOP, and may have to count on getting Democratic votes for passage. The Senate, led by Democrats, passed its own version last week.

Both the Senate and House bills would end direct payments to farmers in favor of more extensive crop insurance programs.

But the sheer size of spending contained in the bills — particularly on food stamps, which takes up 80 percent of the Senate’s five-year, $500 billion farm bill — could become a sticking point during the House debate.

“The bill should be rejected outright for its price tag and its expansion of the government’s outsized and outdated role in American agriculture,” Stephen Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said Monday.

The Senate passed a farm bill last week that cuts the food-stamp program — now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — by about $400 million a year, or half a percent.

But the House version goes further, cutting SNAP benefits by $2 billion a year, or a little more than 3 percent, and making it more difficult for some people to qualify.

Now, isn’t that great. $1Trillion of waste and the dems brag they cut $400 million, or one-half of a percent while the ‘Pubs brag they’ve cut three percent.

Some GOP lawmakers say that’s still not enough, while House Democrats argue that low-income families cannot absorb the cuts. As of Monday, 134 of them had co-sponsored a resolution that asks members to reject any legislation that reduces food stamp benefits.

…

House Agriculture Chairman Frank D. Lucas, Oklahoma Republican, who shepherded the House bill through his committee in May, noted that “no other committee in Congress is voluntarily cutting money, in a bipartisan way.”

Rep. Collin C. Peterson, Minnesota Democrat and the ranking minority agriculture committee member, said “it is past time to get this bill done.”

But Americans for Prosperity, a conservative political advocacy group, said Monday it will launch an advertising blitz in a bipartisan slate of 15 congressional districts, including Mr. Boehner‘s, that takes aim at the House bill. The group says the bill is bloated by food-stamp spending and that “well-connected corporations” will get the rest of the funds.

Last year, Mr. Boehner declined to bring a farm bill to the House floor to avoid a nasty intraparty fight ahead of the November elections, as farm state Republicans pushed for crop subsidies while other GOP conservatives demanded widespread cuts. — Washington Times.

The establishment ‘Pubs who support this welfare bill shouldn’t be concerned what their dem congressional friends think of the Food Stamp Welfare bill. No, they should be more concerned what their constituents think. The next congressional primary is only a year away. Pubbies, vote for this and I can guarantee you’ll have primary opposition next year. I’m already hearing increasing rumbles of discontent.
Facebook

BOHICA

Posted on by

Yes, today’s title is an acronym. No, I won’t explain it, look it up. It’s an appropriate title because John Boehner is about to stick it to us again on the Foodstamp Bill. What Foodstamp bill? It’s the one Boehner tries to pass as a Farm Bill. Yes, that nearly $1Trillion bill that is 80% for food stamps and 20% for pork, and not the four-legged kind.

Our local congresswomen is bragging how she deleted a duplicate catfish provision, saving a few tens of million dollars. Will she vote against the entire bill? I doubt it. She voted for it the last time and this time around she has her name on one little piece of eliminating a minor duplication. Of course she’ll vote for it.

But, let’s get back to Boenher. Here’s his plan that he released to the Washington Times.

John Boehner: Time is right to bring latest farm bill to House floor

By Sean Lengell – The Washington Times, Monday, June 10, 2013

After punting last year on a farm bill, House Speaker John A. Boehner said Monday he will bring his chamber’s 2013 version to the floor this month — a move sure to divide his fellow Republicans.

The announcement came the same day the Senate easily passed its own farm bill — a five-year, half-trillion-dollar measure that calls for expanded government subsidies for crop insurance, rice and peanuts while making small food stamp cuts.

Last year, Mr. Boehner declined to bring a farm bill to the House floor in a move designed to avoid a nasty intraparty fight during an election year, as farm state Republicans pushed for crop subsidies while other GOP conservatives demanded widespread cuts.

But with midterm elections almost a year and half away and the Senate passing its farm bill Monday evening by a vote of 66 to 27, the Ohio Republican decided the time was right to hold debate and a possible vote on the measure.

Mr. Boehner suggested his decision also was based on “a number of positive reforms” in his chamber’s bill shepherded by House Agriculture Chairman Frank D. Lucas, Oklahoma Republican — particularly provisions that would end direct payments to farmers and cuts in the food stamp program.

“As a longtime proponent of top-to-bottom reform, my concerns about our country’s farm programs are well known,” said Mr. Boehner in a prepared statement.

“But as I said on the day I became speaker, my job isn’t to impose my personal will on this institution or its members. Rather, it’s to ensure we have a fair process and an open debate, leading to a product that reflects the will of our majority, the will of our members and the will of those we represent.”

Farm bills usually are among the most bipartisan legislative matters on Capitol Hill, as lawmakers from agricultural states and districts — despite party — come together to ensure their success.

The most recent multiyear farm bill expired at the end of September, although programs continued through temporary funding extensions.

The House Agriculture Committee last month passed its latest farm bill with broad bipartisan support. The measure would make much larger cuts to food stamps than the Senate version in a bid to gain support from Republicans who have opposed the measure.

The Senate bill would cut the food stamp program by about $400 million a year, or half a percent. The House bill would cut the program by $2 billion a year, or a little more than 3 percent, and make it more difficult for some people to qualify.

Three percent cut in food stamps. THREE LOUSY PERCENT! The House brags it cut a billion from foods stamp when the total for food stamps is in the neighborhood of $600Billion.

But it’s uncertain whether the cuts will be enough to placate House conservatives. And even Mr. Boehner hinted he may not support the measure in its current form, saying he has concerns about some of the measure’s dairy provisions and “will support efforts on the House floor to change them appropriately.”

The speaker added that if House members “have ideas on how to make the bill better, [they should] bring them forward.”

Because the food stamp program — now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP — makes up almost 80 percent of the bill’s cost, some conservative groups have suggested splitting off the program from the agriculture-related portion of the bill.

“The urban and rural logrolling deemed necessary to pass this bill has created an unholy bipartisan alliance that has long served to thwart fiscally responsible efforts to restrain spending and limit the growth of government,” said a group of more than a dozen conservative organizations in a letter to House members dated Monday. “Separating food stamps and considering them in an alternate piece of legislation is not only sound policy, but also good politics.” — The Washington Times

Separating Food Stamps from the Farm Bill would be an exercise of Truth in Advertising. It’s time to end the subterfuge. A Food Stamps Bill and a Pork Bill. If crop subsidies are really necessary, and I question that (I grew up on a farm,) then let them be evaluated on their own merit, not hidden inside massive pork and welfare legislation.

Facebook

Pugsley wins

Posted on by

As we get closer to November, the polls are tightening. Romney is either at par or slightly ahead of Obama in most of the polls. He’s doing better in the crucial swing states as well.

If that is true, why do I not feel optimistic—I usually am? Perhaps it’s the travesty of an election in Venezuela. Chavez, known in some circles as Pugsley, was up for his third 6-year term. This time he had a courageous opponent. One who had a real chance of winning.  On election day, exit polls indicated a huge win for Chavez’ challenger. Hours after the polls closed Chavez was called the winner with 54% of the vote.

Something smells.

Obama congratulated Chavez.

We have had ample examples of democrat vote fraud, locally and at the state and federal levels. We’ve already seen democrat controlled states disenfranchising the military by refused to send them absentee ballots within the time-frame required by law. Ohio and Wisconsin are the most obvious examples.

In the last election we had examples of democrats shuffling illegals through polls and registering the dead. Breitbart investigated A.C.O.R.N. and exposed their fraudulent tactics.  A.C.O.R.N. continues to get federal funding despite legislation passed in Congress.

After his extremely poor performance in last week’s debate, Obama and the democrats are getting desperate. When ‘rats get desperate, they do desperate things. If Obama loses, we can expect protest, lawsuits, more examples of the “hanging chad,” any tactic to whittle away votes for Romney. Think Florida of 2000 but across the country, especially in those critical swing states.

I do not expect this election to be quiet even with an overwhelming margin for Romney. ‘Rats and the parasite class won’t give up their government subsidies without protests.

Facebook