Category Archives: Farm Bill

Monday’s Moments for July 1, 2013

Posted on by

A collection of miscellany for today. Today is the date a series of new state laws take affect across the country. The Senate, the dems and fifteen ‘pubs, passed their Illegal Alien Amnesty bill. The House rejected the Food Stamp and Pork bill with the help of democrats and Heritage Action for America had a presentation at a local Tea Party gathering.

Starting with the last item, last Friday night, Mrs. Crucis and I were invited to attend a Tea Party meeting where the regional Hertiage Action representative Ben Evans would be speaking. It was an interesting session. The HA representative was accompanied by the MOGOP Political Director, Steve Michael.

That, by itself, was an interesting connection. The Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action purport themselves to be non-establishment. The Missouri GOP is the establishment…at least at the state level. The question is, is Heritage Action supporting the establishment or is the MO GOP establishment distancing themselves from Washington?

The actual presentation was about what I expected. I did have my opinion confirmed that sending emails to our elected US Representatives and Senators was useless. At best, they are just counted. Some officials may tally by subject. A few, a very few apparently, may note the number of pros and cons on a subject. For the most part, emails, unless addressed to a specific staffer, go into the bit bucket. Unfortunately, the same applies for phone calls. Unless you connect to the specific staffer working the issue, your call is ignored.

Signing online petitions is worth even less. There are a few exceptions when the petitions are conducted by some lobbyists. They use the petitions to brow-beat pols into believing whatever position the lobbyist represents.

What does work? Personal visits and actual snail-mail letters according to Heritage Action. I have my doubts on the former. I’ve spoken several times with my local US representative on a number of issues. Regardless, she votes the Washington establishment line.

What did I take away from this meeting? Personal meetings and letters work for some but I’m not convinced it will be all that effective.

A woman at the meeting, in the Q&A session, asked if our ‘Pub representatives really understand how angry people are becoming. The answer? “No, they’re not.” Apparently, once in office, our representatives become isolated behind their hired staffers—staffers whose job it is to formulate policy and to isolate their boss from the public.

Many of these hired staffers are long-time members of the establishment. When a Congressman leaves office, they migrate to another Congressman. In their view, contrary positions from constituents are ignored and public trends are modified to support political positions of the Washington establishment. Establishment staffers insure inexperienced Congressmen toe the establishment line.

Not only do our officials not understand how angry people are, neither, I believe, do the Heritage Action rep and the MOGOP political director. My impression is that these two heard what they expected to hear.

I have been a Heritage Action member since it was created over a year ago. I will continue to be a member. Unfortunately, I’m coming to believe the Heritage Action leadership and by extension, the Heritage Foundation are behind the curve. Both the HA and HF believe in action by lobbying ‘Pub politicians. I no longer believe that tactic works.

***

One aspect of the HA meeting was the Heritage Foundation scorecard of Missouri’s U.S. elected officials. I was surprised to hear that Billy Long, Congressman from Missouri’s 7th District had a score above 90%. The score reflected how consistent Billy Long voted on issues—conservative vs. non-conservative, as judged by the Heritage Foundation.

During the last primary, I heard a lot of criticism about Billy Long. I had no real basis to judge, I’m not in his district. In retrospect, if Billy Long was so bad, how did he acquire such a high score? I have some opinions why but those aren’t the subject of this post.

Newly elected Jason Smith (R-MO-8) who was recently replaced Jo Ann Emerson, had a very low score. Jason Smith had only voted once when the last scoreboard scores were calculated. He voted, “Yes,” on the Food Stamp bill, in contradiction of his campaign rhetoric. He campaigned that he’d vote, “No.” Jason, you disappoint me. In office a week and already you’ve already reneged on meeting your campaign promises to your constituents.

But, Jason Smith wasn’t alone. Every Representative in Missouri voted for that monstrous welfare bill—as did all the ‘Pubs from Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, and other midwestern states. It lost because 71 ‘Pubs, and the House dems (who wanted MORE welfare,) voted against the bill.

It’s a sad tale when we have to rely on dems to kill a wasteful bill. Yes, Jason Smith, disappointed me. I’d hoped you’d be more than just an establishment rubber-stamp.

***

The Senate, with the help of 15 ‘Pub Senators, passed the Illegal Alien Amnesty bill—a bill masquerading as an immigration ‘reform’ bill. The primary spokesman for the ‘Gang of Eight’, Marco Rubio staked his political career on the vote and will likely now bear the consequences. Rubio used the Tea Party to get elected. I doubt the Tea Party members in Florida will repeat their mistake.

***

Today is July 1st and across the country new laws take effect. Here’s a summary.

Around the nation, July 1 marks the start of new fiscal years and the date recently passed legislation goes into effect, although states often mark their independence by enacting new regulations on their own calendars.

The laws and effective dates vary somewhat from state to state, but an overview of legislation set to hit the books July 1st shows that state lawmakers took positions on the following five topics of national debate:

– GUNS: State legislatures across the U.S. discussed gun laws in the wake of mass shootings that shocked the nation in 2012. Most efforts to pass restrictions faded amid fierce opposition. Only a handful of states enacted new limits, some of which go into effect Monday. Among them Colorado is notable for requiring background checks for private and online gun sales and outlawing high-capacity ammunition magazines. At least 18 states, however, have gone the other way and loosened gun laws. Kansas laws set to take effect will allow schools to arm employees with concealed handguns and ensure that weapons can be carried into more public buildings.

– TECH: Dozens of states examined technology laws. Recently passed legislation in eight states will prevent businesses from demanding passwords to social media sites as a condition of employment. The law in Washington state also stops employers from compelling workers to add managers as “friends” so their profile can be viewed. Four states updated tech laws to allow drivers to show proof of car insurance on an electronic device, such as a smartphone.

– CARS: A handful of states have restricted cellphone use while driving. Starting Monday in Hawaii and West Virginia motorists will have to put down handheld devices. Meanwhile, in South Dakota beginning drivers will face similar restrictions. Utah also enacted limits for newbies with a law that has already taken effect. A few states have banned texting while driving. Other state laws affecting drivers will make it illegal to smoke in a car with a child, raise highway speed limits, crackdown on drunken drivers and raise gas taxes. NOTE: in Kansas, texting in an automobile is illegal even when the auto is stopped or not moving.

– ABORTION: Nationally, state lawmakers proposed more than 300 bills that would have restricted abortions, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. At least 13 state legislatures passed new limits, though two are waiting for governors to sign off. Notably, a bill that would have closed almost every abortion clinic in Texas was defeated by a Democratic filibuster and a restless crowd in late June. The Texas governor, however, has ordered another special legislative session to push the bill through. North Dakota has passed the nation’s strictest abortion law, which takes effect in August, banning abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.

-DRONES: An Idaho law taking effect Monday forbids anyone from using an unmanned aircraft for spying on another. Virginia has passed a ban preventing authorities from using drones for the next two years, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Four other states approved anti-drone regulations, though legislation aimed at law enforcement in Texas isn’t effective until fall.

…

Not all of the measures set to take effect were matters dominating national political discussion. The following five examples of recently approved legislation show state-level updates can cover a variety of topics:

– SEXIST LANGUAGE: Washington lawmakers are completing work to strip the state’s books of sexist language. References to “his” will be changed to “his or her,” college “freshmen” will become “first-year students” and “penmanship” will be called “handwriting.”

– JACKPOT: Wyoming residents might soon consider 7, 1 and 13 as lucky numbers. A Cowboy State law kicking in Monday calls for the state to establish a lottery for the first time, leaving a dwindling list of only a handful of states without such a prize drawing.

– ELECTION DAY DRINKING: Kentucky has lifted a ban on election day drinking. It was one of the last states with Prohibition-era restrictions on the sale of alcohol while polls are open.

– EDIBLE LANDSCAPING: Maine lawmakers this session have directed officials to plant edible landscaping, such as fruit trees or berry shrubs, around the Statehouse.

– TANNING: Dozens of states this year considered keeping minors out of tanning beds. New Jersey and Nevada restrictions kick in July 1, and an Oregon limit takes effect in January.

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

Friday Follies for June 21, 2013

Posted on by

I was going to make a FB post yesterday and was distracted. It’s a little thing, personal only to me and my sister. Yesterday was my father’s birthday. If he were still alive, he would be 111.

Happy birthday, Dad.

***

An item was disclosed this week about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that appears to violate the Constitution’s 4th Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. — 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.

It now appears that FISA modified part of the 4th Amendment.

Authorized by Section 702 of the amended Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the program did away with the traditional individual warrant for each foreign suspect whose communications would be collected in the United States. In its place, the FISA court, which oversees domestic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes and whose proceedings are secret, would certify the government’s procedures to target people overseas and ensure citizens’ privacy. — The Washington Post.

Instead of individual warrants as required by the 4th Amendment, NSA was given a blanket certificate—a hunting and fishing license, so to speak, that allowed them to search anyone, everyone, whether hard evidence for probable cause existed, or not.

A comment posted on the Washington Post article above said, “I’m beginning to think the FISA court was set-up by the executive branch to rubber stamp all executive branch demands. The world’s most secret self-licking ice cream cone.” (Panhandle Willy, 6/20/2013 8:03 PM CDT)

 

***

Today is the anniversary of the ratification of the US Constitution. It received its 9th approving vote 225 years ago today by New Hampshire.

On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the document, and it was subsequently agreed that government under the U.S. Constitution would begin on March 4, 1789. — www.history.com

Virginia and New York followed New Hampshire later in June but New Hampshire’s vote was sufficient to actually getting the new government running.

***

The Tea Party was out in force, yesterday, with a rally in Washington DC to protest the actions of the IRS. A number of Congressmen attended as well, Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Rand Paul (Ky.), Ted Cruz (Texas), Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and Dave Camp (Mich.). The question now is whether any of our Missouri Senators and Representatives were there?

I’ve not seen any of the Missouri delegation post about their presence at the rally. I’ve asked Vicky Hartzler and Jason Smith that question but I’ve received no answers yet.

We must remember those absences when the primaries come next year and candidates want Tea Party endorsements.

***

Unsatisfied with the bureaucrats in your state and federal government? That makes you a terrorist says a Tennessee bureaucrat.

Unsatisfied with the quality of your water and eager to let the government know about it?

You might be a terrorist, according to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation.

“We take water quality very seriously. Very, very seriously,” deputy director of TDEC’s Division of Water Resources Sherwin Smith told a baffled and outraged audience in Maury County, Tennessee. “But you need to make sure that when you make water quality complaints you have a basis, because federally, if there’s no water quality issues, that can be considered under Homeland Security an act of terrorism.”

Audience members saw the official’s answer as a means of deterring complaints from the public, according to a report in The Tennessean. — The Daily Caller.

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