Politics The Elephant in the room...The GOP today

Here is one article I found and figured I would share it.
"Immigration reform and your wages" on a website called Lancaster online
Learn Liberty dot org has different sides debating each other on immigration issues.
Morning Examiner: Obamacare train wreck undermines amnesty push on WashingtonExaminer dot com.
There is also a
Pro-amnesty elites to urge "The People's House" to betray American workers from "NumbersUSA LowerImigrationLevels" website. So they may or may not be bias.
Black American Leadership Alliance Anti-Immigrant Rally Keeps on Adding Fringe Activists…and Senators - article at Right Wing Watch
The "DC March for Jobs" dot com website has this Stronger Border Enforcement: Déjà Vu All Over Again

 

The Farm bill that comes up for re authorization every 5-10 years has always had bipartisan support, representing the interests of family farmers and agribusiness, advocates for food for the poor, conservationists and others.

The Senate bill passed with bipartisan support and significant cuts in food stamps by $4 billion over 10 years and direct payments to farmers (commodity support) by $15 billion over ten years (replaced with lesser funding for a federal subsidized crop insurance program to help farmers face droughts, hurricanes, etc).

The "no compromise" House Republicans rejected this, wanting greater cuts in food stamps (eliminated totally in House bill) and restoration of some of the cuts in commodity support and new subsidies for peanut, cotton, rice, sugar....mostly to big agribusiness, not family farms.

As to the bi-partisan immigration bill that the Senate passed, I would urge you to read the provisions on the "earned legalization program - not amnesty and certainly not for any undocumented worker with a criminal record - a process that would take 10-15 years, along with payment of taxes.

And read the non-partisan CBO report on the economic impact, not the biased undocumented reports of anti-immigration groups.

 

The Farm Bill needs to be simplified. It contains millions of dollars in subsidies to big Agribusiness, like the sugar industry. These industries do not need taxpayer subsidy. Also consider on one hand food stamps to purchase surgery foods and on the other the subsidies to the industry all while the nation has a so call obesity crisis that costs the nation billions of dollars. The bill is a mess, they need to start over from scratch. No more rubber stamps for these overly complex bills loaded with hidden and excessive costs many in conflict with other national goals and objectives.

 

FYI - an interesting commentary on Sugar subsidies. One key point is that 47% of the benefits go to 1% of the farmers in this commodity.

Why Congress Should Repeal Sugar Subsidy | Cato Institute

Why Congress Should Repeal Sugar Subsidy | Cato Institute

Again, the Farm Bill should not be rubber stamped and there are legitimate reasons for not supporting the current bill under consideration.

 

Both the Senate and the original House bill cut commodities support significantly over 10 years (and added funding for more crop insurance support instead when faced with disaster scenario), with the House adding nearly $4 billion more) and cutting food stamps by $20 billion as opposed to the Senate $4 billion cut....but Boehner couldnt get the support it without even greater cuts to food stamps.



The only bill that the House could pass on a strict partisan vote included cutting all food stamp funding from the bill (with a promise for a separate bill in the future )

HR 1947 (the bill that Boehner couldnt get his caucus to support) might have been a point at which negotiations could take place with the Senate, but once again, the Tea Party types killed it.

The newer House bill is so extreme as to not be worthy of further serious discussion by the Senate.

 

I am not aware of anyone wanting to remove the social safety net, which would include provisions to make sure people in need can eat. However, I think we can do better in this regard. Demagoguery gets in the way of any real discussion.
--- merged: Jul 15, 2013 at 7:23 PM ---

The Tea Party, in principle supports questioning the paradigms of big government. Given the food stamp issue, at the core is if this should be a federal program or a state/local program. And I would suggest if individual states needs federal assistance for a food stamp program it be handled on a case by case basis. There is no single solution, each state/local has unique needs in this regard.

Again there are some legitimate issues regarding effectiveness and efficiency that does not go with the narrative that conservatives want poor children to go hungry. Why wouldn't you support separating the food stamp issue from the Farm Bill, so we can potentially do a better job of meeting the needs of people? Currently, in my opinion, the Farm Bill is mostly a means for politicians to posture for their supporters as opposed to what is best for the nation and people. Conservatives from rural states get agribusiness support. Liberals from urban centers get the poverty complex support. Big exporters get their benefits. Foreign governments get their benefits. Etc. Etc. all at the cost of American consumers and taxpayers. Tea Party people were sent to Washington to stop this type of stuff.

 

Ace...the House billed that failed cut $20 billion in SNAP funds over 10 years, the Ryan budget cuts $100 billion over 10 years and the House bill that passed eliminates funding entirely.....and in all three cases, with NO proposal to fund a food nutrition program to millions of low income individuals and families that need assistance to avoid food insecurity.

Hell, I could even consider block granting the program and giving more administrative functions to the states, but that has not been proposed. Again, nothing has been proposed by the Republicans other than eviscerating the program.

So what is your proposal to provide food assistance to poor folks in Mississippi a the same level, relative to costs of living, as poor folks in New York? Maybe you can share the details with the Tea Party and one of its members in the House can introduce it as a legislative proposal to demonstrate a commitment to fund a food safety net.

Until such time, you're spewing ideological generalities and not offering anything constructive.
--- merged: Jul 15, 2013 at 10:58 PM ---
The "biblical" prospective of one Tea Party member of Congress to "stop this type of stuff":

Can I get an "Amen", ace?

 

I will agree that it should be implemented better and event that SNAP recipients should have to work at producing real food or practice cooking healthy food with the food they get. Bring in the churches and the liberal groups that help the needy and improve their lives.

But neither side has a 'plan'. Why is it so hard to come up with a plan? I'll tell you why, because it is much easier for your opponents to spin an actual plan and use it against you and the people that you want to help. The do-nothing talking heads are preventing real progress from happening.

And there should be a 'federal' government or a 'state' government plan, it should be one plan, custom fit for each region with inputs from local people, but some consistencies that only need to be done once at the Federal level instead of 50 times in each state.

 

military spending levels are approaching all-time highs:

Chart of the Day: "Current Military Spending Is Lapping at Historic Highs, Not Lows." | Mother Jones

these figures do not include the massive amounts pissed away on "heimat security".

until there is a significant policy re-orientation away from diverting this kind of money into a conservative patronage system (the explanation for reagan's "military keynesianism" if you recall), nothing--and i mean nothing---about conservative attempts to undermine the redistribution of wealth toward poorer folk---particularly not on "fiscal responsibility" grounds---is worth consideration.

 

I would support a transition to a block grant program - you might even consider my view a compromise. I think the best way to address the issue is on a state/local level.

In a state like Mississippi (and I am not familiar with the state, just speculation on my part) they may adopt a food program involving fresh and locally grown food to support both small farmers and those in need. With a focus on fruits and vegetables rather than processed foods from other states. Perhaps in New York they would adopt a system funded by restaurant food and beverage taxes. The programs could be very different. And Like I wrote if there is a need to help, the Federal government can help as needed on a case by case basis - for example after a disaster a state may face a unique need.

I am not very religious, but I do believe charity should be voluntary. I don't know anyone who would not help a family in need in some manner. But I know plenty who have issue with government assistance programs subject to abuse. The issue is not charity, the issue is the abuse.
--- merged: Jul 18, 2013 4:48 PM ---

Headlines are often provocative. What is the increase the result of? Is it Homeland security? Is it benefits for retired military personnel ( there are more living retired military now than ever). What is it? What would you cut? I would cut funding for international affairs! I would not give money to countries like Egypt. I would close many military bases in Europe and Asia.

 

ace, all you had to do is click the link about the little chart to get to the more elaborated article, which, in turn, would take you to the data. here, i'll even help you get started:

Cooked Books Tell Tall Tales | TIME.com

 

I already know what my views are. I know the growth in defense spending is made up of a number of factors that go beyond the headline in the article cited. I know what I would cut and I know why. In fact I agree that defense spending is and has been out of control along with the rest of the federal budget. I asked you what you would cut? and I would followup with wanting to know why? For example would you cut military pensions? Would you cut military spending on healthcare? Would you cut military spending on higher education for troops? Would you cut housing for families? Would you cut homeland security? Would you cut R&D? Would you cut funding to certain countries, like Egypt?

You gave a general point of view and I am trying to understand your point of view on a deeper level. Or, is it a mantra of cut defense, cut defense, cut defense?

 

the drone war is largely a cia matter. they're apparently better killers now they can focus on that and not worry about being prosecuted for torture etc. remote murder is o so much cleaner. cheaper too, they say, so long as you don't factor in those pesky longer-term problems. and suspend any semblance of ethics. but hey, war is heck, they say.

ace: you have a real aversion to actually looking at information. i don't understand it.

 

The civil war within the GOP is ramping up:

The next step, when it fails, is likely to be more Tea Party challengers of non-compliant Republican incumbents resulting in greater chance for Democrats to retain the Senate (and even steal a few Republican seats - KY, GA) and pick up even more seats in the House than would otherwise be possible.