Reactions to story from The New York Times

• 

  Barack Obama: Venality You Can Count On

  http://elidourado.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/barack-obama-vena...
  68 days ago in Eli Dourado · Authority: 14

  Barack Obamas campaign slogan is Change We Can Believe In.  It is a brilliant slogan, for two reasons.  First, Change is sufficiently ambiguous that it can mean almost anything.  For a politician, principles are a liability.  Its best not to commit to
• 

  Bravo New York Times

  http://moot.typepad.com/what_if/2008/05/bravo-new-york-times...
  68 days ago in what if? · Authority: 37

  It isn't often that I agree with New York Times editorials.  But check your moon; today the Times' is right on target! Congress has approved a $307 billion farm bill that rewards rich farmers who do not need the help while doing virtually nothing to
• 

  Farm bill gets bad reviews

  http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/farm...
  69 days ago in The Swamp · Authority: 1,520

  by Frank James The just-passed farm bill, which is valued at $290 billion to $307 billion, depending on who's counting, is taking some heavy flak from the city slickers who comprise the editorial pages of some of the nation's largest newspapers. The
• 

  NY Times Calls Us a Disgrace

  http://blogfromonhigh.blogspot.com/2008/05/ny-times-calls-us...
  69 days ago in From On High · Authority: 74

  And the editorialists there would be absolutely right in doing so. Because we keep reelecting the lowlife who is a willing participant in the most outrageous scheme ever devised by Congress: A Disgraceful Farm Bill New York Times editorial Congress has
• 

  15?!?

  http://senateconservatives.com/2008/06/07/farm-bill-15/
  43 days ago in Senate Conservatives Fund · Authority: 21

  15?!? Really? 15? That’s all we could scare up? 15 votes. If you randomly opened up the Cambridge telephone directory and started dialing, you would likely find at least 1 in 5 households who would agree that the farm bill was one of the worst pieces of public policy the U.S. Senate has passed in a while. That number would probably rise to 1 in 3 if you detailed some of the wasteful provisions included in the bill. HT to Redstate for detailing some of the choicest cuts of pork from the farm bill: Title I, Sub. A, SEC. 1104. AVAILABILITY OF COUNTER-CYCLICAL PAYMENTS. Provides for payments to farmers of specified crops “if the Secretary [of Agriculture] determines that the effective price for the covered commodity is less than the target price for the covered commodity.” For example, if the price of Oats falls below $1.44 per bushel, the oat farmers get to make up the difference with taxpayer money. Don’t you wish Congress did this for your business? Oh, the fun we lawyers could have! Title I, Sub. C, SEC. 1303. AVAILABILITY OF DIRECT PAYMENTS FOR PEANUTS. Yes, the bill also provides “direct payments” (i.e., regardless of the market price of the crop) for some specified crops, to make sure that if you grow peanuts, you get taxpayer dollars, win or lose! And you still get to sell the peanuts! Win-win! Title I, Sub. D (Sugar), SEC. 359k. ADMINISTRATION OF TARIFF RATE QUOTAS. Enforces tariffs on sugar. Wonder why unhealthy high-fructose corn syrup is so popular? (Seriously, look at an ingredients list some time). Well, Congress is a good place to start. One reason is because tariffs on imported sugar keep prices artificially high, leading producers of sodas and snacks to substitute cheaper HFCS. Yay for Congress and Barack Obama for supporting this government interference!Title I, Sub. E, SEC. 1509. FEDERAL MILK MARKETING ORDER REVIEW COMMISSION. I’ve discussed before the wonderful federal milk marketing order process, which involves a Cabinet secretary in a price-fixing scheme. Any Congress worthy of the job would tear what Dick Armey long ago called “Our Socialist Farm Policy” up by the roots. But this is Washington, so here’s the solution: appoint a 14-member “Federal Milk Marketing Order Review Commission” to study the issue for two years and report back to Congress on whether the price-fixing process is working out well enough. Title I, Sub. F, SEC. 1621. GEOGRAPHICALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS AND RANCHERS. What, you ask, is a “geographically disadvantaged farmer”? Apparently, it’s somebody who started a farm so far off in the middle of nowhere that it’s too expensive to transport the crops to anybody who will buy them. You know, that should usually be a sign to go into another line of business, like maybe drilling for oil or telemarketing or something. But no - Congress will pay your shipping costs with taxpayer money! Title II, Sub. E, SEC. 1238I. FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM. Commits the Secretary to “establish and carry out a farmland protection program under which the Secretary shall facilitate and provide funding for the purchase of conservation easements or other interests in eligible land….by limiting nonagricultural uses of that land.” So not only are we paying people to grow unprofitable crops in unreachable locations, fixing retail prices and taxing the bejesus out of the competition, we’re going to spend taxpayer dollars to buy even more farmland that nobody has managed to make economically viable in the 400 or so years that people have been farming here. Title V, Sub. A, SEC. 5005. BEGINNING FARMER OR RANCHER AND SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMER OR RANCHER CONTRACT LAND SALES PROGRAM. As if the rest of this bill doesn’t already convince us that we are supporting farmers who don’t know how to make money producing the very stuff of life itself, the government wants to pay ignorant amateurs to get in the business by “guarantee[ing] a loan made by a private seller of a farm or ranch to a qualified beginning farmer or rancher or socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher.” Title XI SEC. 11013. NATIONAL AQUATIC ANIMAL HEALTH PLAN. “The Secretary of Agriculture may enter into a cooperative agreement with an eligible entity to carry out a project under a national aquatic animal health plan.” Federal money for health care for the creatures of the sea! What makes this vote so sad is that the bill doesn’t have widespread support. In fact it has widespread opposition. Editorial Boards spanning the political spectrum - from the New York Times (A Disgraceful Farm Bill) to the Wall Street Journal (Who Wants to Be a Millionaire) - highlighted the folly of this legislation. The bill’s support lies with the mega farms and vested special interests who get some of the goodies detailed above. Unfortunately, instead of listening to the widespread criticism of the bill, politicians thought it was better to hand out favors by the bushel while mortgaging our children’s future. Members will look back with regret on this vote. Well at least a few might. Maybe. Hopefully.
• 

  Obama: The Liberal Trojan Horse?

  http://oddlyamerican.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/obama-the-libe...
  59 days ago in Oddlyamerican · Authority: 1

  There have been many false accusations leveled at Barack Obama during this never-ending campaign season, from the malicious, such as being a Muslim or a follower of black liberation theology, whichever you choose, to the mostly benign, like being derided as an appeaser. But there is one aspersion in particular that has so far struggled to gain momentum, though when he becomes his party’s presumptive nominee it will be very potent indeed. The charge is that Obama is some kind of liberal Trojan Horse, ready to unleash a barrage of leftist measures as soon as he steps into the Oval Office. It’s all part of his plan you see: act a little right of center occasionally, you know, just to get in, and then before you know it he’s tapping the wealthy for a single payer health-care system, inviting Ahmadinejad over to hammer out peace in the Middle East and then helping illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship while replacing oil companies with government agencies to manage renewable energy just for good measure. And all in his first term no less. We have already seen this straw man tested out - so far unsuccessfully - in recent congressional elections, not only because the right feel it is a something of an achilles heal for Obama, and by extension Democrats asscociated with Obama, but mainly because this is the very real fear of many on the right. I’ve lost count of how many times I have read or heard right-wing pundits citing the National Journal’s report calling Obama the most liberal politician in the Senate of 2007. And if you have any means of communication whatsoever, whether it is a Blackberry or a pair of tin-cans and some string, you will no doubt be pounded to deafness with that message as we shift gears from intra-party battle of attrition to all out ideological war. The irony, of course, is that neither candidate, is that ideologically driven. Given the current trends it looks as though they’ll both be running on a platform of patriotism and a bi-partisan record while attacking their rival for being too ideological. This would usually be par for course in any general election but here we have two candidates who are able to make very credible claims for reaching across the aisle, and also for the classic American story (albeit two very different versions). Obama, the son of an African immigrant and a Kansan woman, overcoming the odds to become the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review and now legimate candidate for the the United States Presidency. McCain, on the other hand bestows the more archetypal version, the one of the war hero who suffered stoically for his country whilst serving in the great stain on America’s recent history, Vietnam. Although McCain has swapped his mantle of party maverick for opportunist after his recent flip-flopping on issues such as taxes, abortion, the Iraq War, immigration and pretty much every other issue Americans care about, his image as bipartisan is still largely intact following his love affair with the media back in 2000. The problem for Obama though is that while the right-wing of the Republican Party is only too aware of McCain’s flirtation with the so-called center, and have successfully dragged him back over to the right, the leftist element of the Democratic Party seem only too happy to embrace the Trojan Horse logic, and I would wager probably moreso than their right-wing counterparts. Personally, I would be delighted to see the scenarios mentioned at the top of this post unfold, but it is simply not going to happen. Barack Obama is a true centrist, he believes in consensus, debate and transparency, and throughout his career he has consistently shown that these are his guiding principles. Whether it is because he is black, an opponent of the Iraq War or perhaps because he started his political career as a community organizer - typically seen as very progressive - the secret hope that Obama is the liberal warrior we’ve all been waiting for is cemented more by virtue of who he is rather than what he has done. Activist organizations such as NARAL, MOVEON.org and a multitude of unions appear to have mistaken his inspirational rhetoric for radical policy positions and have excitedly endorsed him, serving to strengthen the image of liberal in disguise. There is, of course, an element of truth in all this. Obama is a Democrat and is naturally somewhat left of center on many issues, and that’s where it ends because unlike much of Obama’s youth contingent he is measured on all his positions and, more importantly, also willing to give ground. He wants universal health-care, though not through taxes but by making it more affordable; he believes gay and lesbian couples should share the same rights as married couples but not the title; and he is famously not anti war but “anti dumb-wars”. He is also undoubtedly in tune with the zeitgeist of America’s youth and is able to communicate and reassure them through language and behaviour that he empathizes with them and their beliefs. Yesterday, Obama gave the commencement speech at Wesleyan College in the place of Teddy Kennedy (who it would seem according to all the premature obituaries has already died. He just doesn’t seem to know about it yet). During his speech Obama asked this of his audience: “At a time of war, we need you to work for peace. At a time of inequality, we need you to work for opportunity. At a time of so much cynicism and so much doubt, we need you to make us believe again. That’s your task, Class of 2008.“ These are not radical positions, and the second is congruent with the bedrock of the Constitution. Obama’s talent is that he is able to invoke the philosophy of the forefathers and refurbish it through the lens of the 21st century. Really, it is an indictment of our political culture that such cornerstones of democracy are now interpreted as somewhat radical. So as long as Obama continues to frame his candidacy and core values as the antithesis of the status quo and thus appear radical then the perception that he is liberal on issues will naturally follow. This fallacy of extension, which has taken off considerably, bodes dangerously for him in the Fall and certainly his first term if he becomes President. Last week we saw a perfect illustration of the more negative side-effects of Obama’s political philosophy play out during an important Senate vote. Tellingly, he voted in favor of the disastrous ‘Farm Bill’ while John McCain voted against the bill, a bill which the President also has promised to veto because of bloated subsidies for corporations (though it is very unlikely the veto will effect anything). Anyone familiar with the Farm Bill knows that it is an archaic program that swells the profits of agribusiness while ensuring that markets overseas are swamped with cheap surplus, helping to suppress the faintest hope of emerging local markets. Needless to say such conditions lead to poverty and mass migration, as we have seen in Mexico over the past ten years. Even though this particular bill provides more for regular Americans in the form of food stamps and nutrition than ever before, the funding is paltry compared to what the likes of Monsanto and others will receive. The reasoning behind the Democrats’ votes is two-fold: there are congressional seats in the Mid-West that are dependent on the farm lobby and the other is that this particular Bill demonstrates that the Farm Bill is evolving to where progressives would like to see it. In this case I believe McCain and Bush are absolutely right to excoriate the Bill and that Pelosi and Obama have sacrificed the opportunity for real change for an acceptable compromise. This is the danger of Obama’s guiding principle, namely that in times where a stand needs to be made he has deferred to compromise and consensus. Above all, principles of democracy should always trump ideology, but we must also recognize that there are times where there is a choice between just and unjust, irrespective of dominant mood or tradition, as the California Supreme Court made clear recently, with its decision on gay marriage. My concern, slight as it is, is not only that Obama will compromise in times of crisis, but also that if he wins in November because of a perception generated by hitching personal values to his rising star rather than through Obama’s agenda of unity, then we could witness the cruelest of all hang-overs for a vast swathe of the American electorate. For his part Obama has always tried to make clear that he is the conciliator rather than the warrior. In fact he said as much at the commencement speech yesterday, warning students, “We may disagree as Americans on certain issues and positions, but I believe we can be unified in service to a greater good.” It is important for Obama to continue to reiterate this message as much as possible but it is equally important to reassure all Americans that there is a place at the table waiting for them, if they choose to take it, as his core message of unity demands.
• 

  Obama: The Liberal Trojan Horse?

  http://my.zestead.com/austindwilawyer/uncategorized/obama-th...
  59 days ago in | Andy C.Z. Network · Authority: 14

  There have been many false accusations levelled at Barack Obama during this never-ending campaign season, from the malicious, such as being a Muslim or a follower of black liberation theology, whichever you choose, to the mostly benign, being derided as an appeaser. But there is one aspersion in particular that has so far struggled to gain momentum, though when he becomes his party's presumptive nominee, it will be very potent indeed. The charge is that Obama is some kind of liberal Trojan Horse, ready to unleash a barrage of leftist measures as soon as he steps into the Oval Office. It's all part of his plan you see: act right of center occasionally, you know, just to get in, and then before you know it he's tapping the wealthy for a single payer health-care system, inviting Ahmadinejad over to hammer out peace in the Middle East and then helping illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship while replacing oil companies with government agencies to manage renewable energy just for good measure. And all in his first term no less. We have already seen this straw man tested out - so far unsuccessfully - in recent congressional elections, not only because the right feel it is a something of an achilles heal for Obama, and by extension Democrats asscociated with Obama, but mainly because this is the very real fear of many on the right. I've lost count of how many times I have read or heard right-wing pundits citing the National Journal's report calling Obama the most liberal politician in the Senate of 2007. And if you have any means of communication whatsoever, whether it is a Blackberry or a pair of tin-cans and some string, you will no doubt be pounded to deafness with that message as we shift gears from intra-party battle of attrition to all out ideological war. The irony, of course, is that neither candidate, is that ideologically driven. Given the current trends it looks as though they'll both be running on a platform of patriotism and a bi-partisan record while attacking their rival for being too ideological. This would usually be par for course in any general election but here we have two candidates who are able to make very credible claims for the classic American story (albeit two very diffrenet versions), andreaching acroos the aisle. Obama the son of an African immigrant and a Kansan woman, overcoming the odds to become the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review and now legimate candidate for the the United States Presidency. McCain, on the other hand bestows the more archetypal version, the one of the war hero who suffered stoically for his country whilst serving in the great stain on America's recent history, Vietnam. Although McCain has swapped his mantle of party maverick for opportunist after his recent flip-flopping on issues such as taxes, abortion, the Iraq War, immigration and pretty much every other issue Americans care about, his image as bipartisan is still largely intact following his love affair with the media back in 2000. The problem for Obama though is that while the right-wing of the Republican Party is only too aware of McCain's flirtation with the so-called center, and have successfully dragged him back over to the right, the leftist element of the Democratic Party seem only too happy to embrace the Trojan Horse logic, and I would wager probably moreso than their right-wing counterparts. Personally, I would be delighted to see the scenarios mentioned at the top of this post unfold, but it is simply not going to happen. Barack Obama is a true centrist, he believes in consensus, debate and transparency, and throughout his career he has consistently shown that these are his guiding principles. Whether it is because he is black, an opponent of the Iraq War or perhaps because he started his political career as a community organizer - typically seen as very progressive - the secret hope that Obama is the liberal warrior we've been waiting for is cemented more by virtue of who he is rather than what he has done. Activist organizations such as NARAL, MOVEON.org and a multitude of unions appear to have mistaken his inspirational rhetoric for radical policy positions and have excitedly endorsed him, serving to strengthen the image of liberal in disguise. There is, of course, an element of truth in all this. Obama is a Democrat and is naturally somewhat left of center on many issues. But unlike much of Obama's youth contingent he is measured on all his positions and, more importantly, also willing to give ground. He wants universal health-care, though not through taxes but by making it more affordable; he believes gay and lesbian couples should share the same rights as married couples but not the title; and he is famously not anti war but "anti dumb-wars". He is also undoubtedly in tune with the zeitgeist of America's youth and is able to communicate and reassure them through language and behaviour that he empathizes with them and their beliefs. Yesterday, Obama gave the commencement speech at Wesleyan College in the place of Teddy Kennedy (who it would seem according to all the premature obituaries has already died. He just doesn't seem to know about it yet). During his speech Obama asked this of his audience: "At a time of war, we need you to work for peace. At a time of inequality, we need you to work for opportunity. At a time of so much cynicism and so much doubt, we need you to make us believe again. That's your task, Class of 2008." These are not radical positions, and the second is congruent with the bedrock of the Constitution. Obama's talent is that he is able to invoke the philosophy of the forefathers and refurbish it through the lens of the 21st century. Really, it is an indictment of our political culture that such cornerstones of democracy are now interpreted as somewhat radical. So as long as Obama continues to frame his candidacy and core values as the antithesis of the status quo and thus appear radical then the perception that he is liberal on issues will naturally follow. This fallacy of extension, which has taken off considerably, bodes dangerously for him in the Fall and certainly his first term if he becomes President. Last week we saw a perfect illustration of the more negative side-effects of Obama's political philosophy play out during an important Senate vote. Tellingly, he voted in favor of the disastrous 'Farm Bill' while John McCain voted against the Bill which the President also has promised to veto because of bloated subsidies (though it is very unlikely the veto will effect anything), for corporations. Anyone familiar with the Farm Bill knows that it is an archaic program that swells the profits of agribusiness while ensuring that markets overseas are swamped with cheap surplus, helping to suppress the faintest hope of emerging local markets. Needless to say such conditions lead to poverty and mass migration, as we have seen in Mexico over the past ten years. Even though this particular Bill provides more for regular Americans in the form of Food Stamps and nutrition than ever before, the funding is paltry compared to what the likes of Monsanto and others will receive. The reasoning behind the Democrats' votes is two-fold: there are congressional seats in the Mid-West that are dependent on the farm lobby and the other is that this particular Bill demonstrates that the Farm Bill is evolving to where progressives would like to see it. In this case I believe McCain and Bush are absolutely right to excoriate the Bill and that Pelosi and Obama have sacrificed the opportunity for real change for an acceptable compromise. This is the danger of Obama's guiding principle, namely that in times where a stand needs to be made he has deferred to compromise and consensus. Above all, principles of democracy should always trump ideology, but we must also recognize that there are times where there is a choice between just and unjust, irrespective of dominant mood or tradition, as the California Supreme Court made clear recently, with its decision on gay marriage. My concern, slight as it is, is not only that Obama will compromise in times of crises, but also that if he wins in November because of a perception generated by hitching personal values to his rising star rather than through Obama's agenda of unity, then we could witness the cruelest of all hang-overs for a vast swathe of the American electorate. For his part Obama has always tried to make clear that he is the conciliator rather than the warrior. In fact he said as much at the commencement speech yesterday, warning students, "We may disagree as Americans on certain issues and positions, but I believe we can be unified in service to a greater good." It is important for Obama to continue to reiterate this message as much as possible but it is equally important to reassure all Americans that there is a place at the table waiting for them, if they choose to take it, as his core message of unity demands.
• 

  Weekly Sausage Links

  http://wwje.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/weekly-sausage-links-8/
  59 days ago in What Would Jesus Eat? · Authority: 8

  I scour the internet for you the faithful reader to find bits and bobs. Then I put them into the Jesus meatgrinder and crank out your weekly sausage links: Farm Bill a Boon to U.S. Poor As food prices shoot up, so do backyard gardens Do Food Miles Matter? Got weeds? Reach for the food processor, not the lawnmower Hunger Prompting Desperate Acts Top Ten Reasons To Go Vegetarian Famine Looms as Wars Rend Horn of Africa New breed of American emerges in need of food Finding the Best Way to Cook All Those Vegetables Cost of free food gets ever higher for pantries Farm Bill editorials: Rich harvest A Disgraceful Farm Bill Farm Bill Chestnuts Reform the farm bill “Leave our agricultural future to chefs and anyone who takes food and cooking seriously. We never bought into the “bigger is better” mantra, not because it left us too dependent on oil, but because it never produced anything really good to eat. Truly great cooking — not faddish 1.5-pound rib-eye steaks with butter sauce, but food that has evolved from the world’s thriving peasant cuisines — is based on the correspondence of good farming to a healthy environment and good nutrition. It’s never been any other way, and we should be grateful. The future belongs to the gourmet.” -Dan Barber, NY Times, May 11, 2008
• 

  Lucille Roybal Allard Votes for Corporate Handouts as Food Prices Rise

  http://baldingforcongress.blogspot.com/2008/05/lucille-royba...
  59 days ago in Chris for Congress · No authority yet

  Lucille Roybal Allard Votes for Corporate Handouts as Food Prices Rise Ever so often, I feel compelled to speak out on certain topics because of the sheer egregiousness of actions by our government and Lucille Roybal Allard. This week the United States Congress and Lucille Roybal Allard voted to hand out massive corporate welfare through subsidies to farmers at a time of record high food prices. No less than the Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times have called the subsidies to farmers "the most undeserving welfare recipients in American history". Most appalling to qualify for massive government subsidies your income merely needs to be beneath $750,000 and most government aid will go to the largest farmers. Lucille Roybal Allar d isn't voting to help out small farmers. What is even more appalling is that the 34th district in the middle of Los Angeles County has Lucille Roybal Allard to vote for this monstrosity of legislation. While farmers in Iowa are qualifying for government subsidies while earning $750,000, the people of the 34th district will continue to see our food bills go up. Here is an analysis by a Harvard economist on the current farm bill. The Real Economic Problem Facing America I am often asked when campaigning what is the biggest economic problem facing America today. Less education? China ? Budget deficits from Bush tax cuts and Iraq ? International trade? Immigration? While all of those are economic issues for America that need to be addressed, the biggest economic problem facing America is Social Security and Medicare. Social security and Medicare/Medicaid spending as baby boomers retire will rise substantially and take up more of government spending and higher taxes without significant reform. According to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released this week, without significant reform to our entitlement programs "federal debt.would climb from about 37 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2007 to more than 290 percent in 2050.". The CBO also estimates that our total deficit in 2007 of 1.2% of our economy without major reform will rise to 22.5% of our national economy in 2050. How do we pay for this without reform? According to the CBO "individual income taxes would have to be raised by about 90 percent to finance the projected increased in spending between 2007 and 2050." It is sad that Lucille Roybal Allard has chosen a position that sets America on the path towards bankruptcy rather than reforming a system needs reforming. Rep. Roybal Allards support of corporate handouts, government subsidies, and tax increases of 90 percent cannot be continued. I need your help to reform our government and change these disastrous policies supported by our current representative. Check our Events Page for upcoming campaign events Don't forget to vote June 3 and have a wonderful Memorial Day honoring the men and women who serve our country.
• 

  The Farm Bill: Pathetic Pandering

  http://www.benandthomas.com/2008/05/fram-bill-pathetic-pande...
  60 days ago in Ben and Thomas · No authority yet

  The universal disdain for the recently passed, vetoed and overrided Farm Bill that received super-majorities in the house and senate a couple days ago is well documented. You know something is wrong when the NY Times, the WSJ and just about anybody with a blog universally declares the absolute lunacy of the policy. What is particularly ironic about the latest grab bag of income redistribution is the context of the political debate in which it was passed. On the same DAY that the farm bill was passed, Congress had executives from major oil companies testify so they could insult, deride and embarrass them. The irony, of course, is the fact that the congress was passing a law to take money from you and me and give it to rich executives and multi-national companies enjoying the highest prices for their commodity goods while slamming others in the exact same situation. I wonder how I can get my industry into this "most favored industry"status, where I can get the governement to confiscate property from others and give to me. Obama says he will not deal with special interests...what on earth is the farm bill then.

Advertise on Technorati