I just wrote a new post on Blasted Fools on the Farm Bill that Congress is going to be taking up in the coming weeks. What actually is the Farm Bill, what's in it and why do we need it? These are questions that most Americans have little specific knowledge of, but since it is your money being spent – maybe it's time to look into it.
I just wrote a new post on Blasted Fools on the Farm Bill that Congress is going to be taking up in the coming weeks. What actually is the Farm Bill, what's in it and why do we need it? These are questions that most Americans have little specific knowledge of, but since it is your money being spent – maybe it's time to look into it.
One of the aspects of this matter that struck me as familiar was a trend in Congress. Take any entitlement that has achieved sacred status in the eyes of a powerful group of special interests and mate it together with other provisions that have broad public support - in this case farm subsidies and 'nutritional assistance'. The blissful result for Washington? You now have normally separate policy advocacy groups joined together in a coalition against reform.
Farm subsidies are a particularly radioactive area for members of Congress. Whenever any mention of cutting back on these payments is raised, there is a hysterical outcry. It's very similar to what we've been seeing with the rather tepid trimming of spending that commenced because of the triggers in Sequestration – or as Maxine Waters pronounces it 'Sea-Castration'. Even merely looking at the Farm bill is fraught with hazards for fiscally conservative members of Congress. Talking about phasing out payments that farmers clearly no longer need, is an excuse for Democrats to brand Republicans as 'anti-Farmer'.
You'll notice that in the Presidential Election nomination process, in the run up to the Iowa Caucus, none of the candidates will make even the smallest chirp about circumscribing the outmoded system of payments to farmers. It's the kiss of death and the Evil Eye rolled into one. Still, we need to re-evaluate all aspects of federal spending in light of the merits and constitutionality and we need brave politicians (is that a oxymoron?), to be willing to fall on a sword for the good of the country.
Also, in the post – I have referenced the recommendations from the Heritage Foundation on the mechanics of reform in reference to the Farm bill. My analysis of the topic has nothing at all to do with bashing farmers. I don't think that saying that government is perpetuating a bad policy means that one is 'anti-Farmer'.
I don't know if anybody remembers , a while ago I put a discussion about Obama calling for the hit on Benghazi....IT APPEARS I WAS RIGHT ON EVEY POINT......!!!! Read this.....
""According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.
Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.
Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”
This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.
The former diplomat who spoke with PJ Media regarded the whole enterprise as totally amateurish and likened it to the Mike Nichols film Charlie Wilson’s War about a clueless congressman who supplies Stingers to the Afghan guerrillas. “It’s as if Hillary and the others just watched that movie and said ‘Hey, let’s do that!’” the diplomat said.
He added that he and his colleagues think the leaking of General David Petraeus’ affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell was timed to silence the former CIA chief on these matters.
Regarding General Ham, military contacts of the diplomats tell them that AFRICOM had Special Ops “assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately (not in six hours).”
Ham was told by the White House not to send the aid to the trapped men, but Ham decided to disobey and did so anyway, whereupon the White House “called his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.”
The White House motivation in all this is as yet unclear, but it is known the Ham retired quietly in April 2013 as head of AFRICOM.
PJ Media recognizes this is largely hearsay, but the two diplomats sounded quite credible. One of them was in a position of responsibility in a dangerous area of Iraq in 2004.
We will report more as we learn it. Read more via PJ Media...
I don't know if anybody remembers , a while ago I put a discussion about Obama calling for the hit on Benghazi....IT APPEARS I WAS RIGHT ON EVEY POINT......!!!! Read this.....
I don't know if anybody remembers , a while ago I put a discussion about Obama calling for the hit on Benghazi....IT APPEARS I WAS RIGHT ON EVEY POINT......!!!! Read this.....
""According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.
Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.
Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”
This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.
The former diplomat who spoke with PJ Media regarded the whole enterprise as totally amateurish and likened it to the Mike Nichols film Charlie Wilson’s War about a clueless congressman who supplies Stingers to the Afghan guerrillas. “It’s as if Hillary and the others just watched that movie and said ‘Hey, let’s do that!’” the diplomat said.
He added that he and his colleagues think the leaking of General David Petraeus’ affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell was timed to silence the former CIA chief on these matters.
Regarding General Ham, military contacts of the diplomats tell them that AFRICOM had Special Ops “assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately (not in six hours).”
Ham was told by the White House not to send the aid to the trapped men, but Ham decided to disobey and did so anyway, whereupon the White House “called his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.”
The White House motivation in all this is as yet unclear, but it is known the Ham retired quietly in April 2013 as head of AFRICOM.
PJ Media recognizes this is largely hearsay, but the two diplomats sounded quite credible. One of them was in a position of responsibility in a dangerous area of Iraq in 2004.
We will report more as we learn it. Read more via PJ Media...
Green Acres - The Movie
I just wrote a new post on Blasted Fools on the Farm Bill that Congress is going to be taking up in the coming weeks. What actually is the Farm Bill, what's in it and why do we need it? These are questions that most Americans have little specific knowledge of, but since it is your money being spent – maybe it's time to look into it.
I just wrote a new post on Blasted Fools on the Farm Bill that Congress is going to be taking up in the coming weeks. What actually is the Farm Bill, what's in it and why do we need it? These are questions that most Americans have little specific knowledge of, but since it is your money being spent – maybe it's time to look into it.
One of the aspects of this matter that struck me as familiar was a trend in Congress. Take any entitlement that has achieved sacred status in the eyes of a powerful group of special interests and mate it together with other provisions that have broad public support - in this case farm subsidies and 'nutritional assistance'. The blissful result for Washington? You now have normally separate policy advocacy groups joined together in a coalition against reform.
Farm subsidies are a particularly radioactive area for members of Congress. Whenever any mention of cutting back on these payments is raised, there is a hysterical outcry. It's very similar to what we've been seeing with the rather tepid trimming of spending that commenced because of the triggers in Sequestration – or as Maxine Waters pronounces it 'Sea-Castration'. Even merely looking at the Farm bill is fraught with hazards for fiscally conservative members of Congress. Talking about phasing out payments that farmers clearly no longer need, is an excuse for Democrats to brand Republicans as 'anti-Farmer'.
You'll notice that in the Presidential Election nomination process, in the run up to the Iowa Caucus, none of the candidates will make even the smallest chirp about circumscribing the outmoded system of payments to farmers. It's the kiss of death and the Evil Eye rolled into one. Still, we need to re-evaluate all aspects of federal spending in light of the merits and constitutionality and we need brave politicians (is that a oxymoron?), to be willing to fall on a sword for the good of the country.
Also, in the post – I have referenced the recommendations from the Heritage Foundation on the mechanics of reform in reference to the Farm bill. My analysis of the topic has nothing at all to do with bashing farmers. I don't think that saying that government is perpetuating a bad policy means that one is 'anti-Farmer'.
http://blastedfools.wordpress.com/2013/0...