600 million in cuts to WIC

[ugonow]

the Womens,Infants,and Children nutrition program, and then vote to save farm subsidies from any cuts------------" The House also turned away proposals that would have limited farm subsidy payments to farmers above certain amounts or certain income levels.

By a 154-262 vote, members rejected an amendment from Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) that would prohibit more than $125,000 in subsidies from being paid to farmers. Blumenauer and his supporters argued unsuccessfully that cutting these large subsidies would go a long way toward deficit reduction.

Similarly, the House voted 186-228 against language from Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) that would have prohibited the payment of farm subsidies to people with adjusted gross incomes above $250,000." --------------How is this rationalized in one's mind? Women and children don't have lobbiests with cash in hand?

[cme1201]

So is this a new story you are wanting to discuss ugonow or is it the one from Midish June?

The appropriations bill reduces WIC funding from $6.734 billion this year to $6.001 billion in 2012 — a cut of $733 million below the fiscal year 2011 level, which obviously is much less than the continuing cost of the high-end Bush tax cuts, oil company tax breaks, and various other write-offs for well-to-do taxpayers or powerful corporations.

www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3499
By Zoë Neuberger and Robert Greenstein
Revised June 23, 2011

[ugonow]

I just saw it. Sorry, cme..

[cme1201]

Aug 2, 2011 10:39:13 GMT -5 ugonow said:

I just saw it. Sorry, cme..

Nothing to be sorry for, I was wondering if I had missed an article.

[Deleted]

--------------How is this rationalized in one's mind? Women and children don't have lobbiests with cash in hand?

Rationalization? Easy, each party is trying to cut the other parties pet projects. Now both parties will be able to say "We tried to cut but the other party stopped us". Both cuts were defeated so no cuts were made. Business as usual.

If they were REALLY interested in cutting spending they would go for programs that both parties might be willing to cut. They aren't so they don't. I think the smart thing to do here is look beyond the obvious & see that this is just politics. They weren't seeking cuts, they were seeking political advantage. They are trying to get elected or reelected, not cut anything.

[Angel!]

I don't have a problem with WIC being reduced - you don't have to be really low income to qualify & it could stand to take some cuts. I do have a problem with the farm subsidies not being cut - ridiculous.

[ugonow]

I don't doubt cuts could be made to WIC,I am sure there are many that should not be elegible for it.But protecting farm subsidies in the way the article describes [ voting against means testing,or limiting payouts] just seems hypocritical to me if this really is a budget issue..... Especially for those congressmen that recieve them.

[Deleted]

I like the WIC program - it has tickets for certain foods. The farm subsidies are ridiculous.

[weltschmerz]

A counseling clinic — excuse me — run by your husband got almost $30,000 in state federal funds. A farm, in which you are a partner, got almost $260,000 in federal subsidies. And over the years, you sought more than $60 million in the state earmarks and more than $3.7 million in federal earmarks.

Question — that’s a fiscal hawk?

BACHMANN: Well, let’s go through them. First of all, the money that went to the clinic was actually training money for employees. The clinic did not get the money. And my husband and I did not get the money either. That’s mental health training money that went to employees.

Number two, regarding the farm, the farm is my father-in-law’s farm. It’s not my husband and my farm. It’s my father-in-law’s farm. And my husband and I have never gotten a penny of money from the farm.

Regarding the earmarks, I believe the right place to build projects is in the states and the states have to build roads and bridges. And I don’t apologize for building roads and bridges.

Michele Bachmann actually told two lies to Chris Wallace. She claimed that the farm belonged to her father in law, but what she didn’t say is that she was and still is a partner in the farm. Bachmann also stated that she or husband never made a penny from the family dairy farm, but her financial disclosure forms report that from 2006-2009 she made $32,503-$105,000 in profit off of the farm.
www.politicususa.com/en/bachmann-dairy-farm

Well, you certainly can't cut farm subsidies, where people like Michelle Bachman benefit. It's so much better to take food out of the mouths of children.

[Angel!]

Aug 2, 2011 12:03:44 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Well, you certainly can't cut farm subsidies, where people like Michelle Bachman benefit. It's so much better to take food out of the mouths of children.

Doesn't she have 23 foster kids. Take away her farm subsidies & you are taking food out of the mouths of children.

[weltschmerz]

Despite her claims of "raising" 23 children, she only had some of these foster kids for a week.

If you were watching the Republican Presidential Candidates debate last week, you probably heard Michelle Bachmann state repeatedly that she personally has raised 23 foster children. This is more than just stretching the truth, it is an outright lie. Some of the foster children she took in were only in her care for a week.
www.addictinginfo.org/2011/06/18/michelle-bachmann-klie-about-raising-23-foster-children/

[Angel!]

Aug 2, 2011 12:36:45 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Despite her claims of "raising" 23 children, she only had some of these foster kids for a week.

If you were watching the Republican Presidential Candidates debate last week, you probably heard Michelle Bachmann state repeatedly that she personally has raised 23 foster children. This is more than just stretching the truth, it is an outright lie. Some of the foster children she took in were only in her care for a week.
www.addictinginfo.org/2011/06/18/michelle-bachmann-klie-about-raising-23-foster-children/

Wow, she was a little misleading in the debate. I could raise 23 kids in the next 2 months if you give me 3 at a time & I keep them each for a week. Do that for a year or two & I can brag about raising hundreds of children.

[weltschmerz]

"she was a little misleading in the debate"

Lol! A little misleading? The woman is plumb full to bursting with lies crammed on top of other lies.

(Cue ed to come storming in, telling me how scared I am of Michelle Bachmann)

[frep]

Like there's any politicians not full of lies out there.

Aug 2, 2011 13:23:01 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

"she was a little misleading in the debate"

Lol! A little misleading? The woman is plumb full to bursting with lies crammed on top of other lies.

(Cue ed to come storming in, telling me how scared I am of Michelle Bachmann)

[ugonow]

Might be a bit of an exgeration on her part, but I have to give her credit for taking them in at all.

[cme1201]

Aug 2, 2011 12:03:44 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

A counseling clinic — excuse me — run by your husband got almost $30,000 in state federal funds. A farm, in which you are a partner, got almost $260,000 in federal subsidies. And over the years, you sought more than $60 million in the state earmarks and more than $3.7 million in federal earmarks.

Question — that’s a fiscal hawk?

BACHMANN: Well, let’s go through them. First of all, the money that went to the clinic was actually training money for employees. The clinic did not get the money. And my husband and I did not get the money either. That’s mental health training money that went to employees.

Number two, regarding the farm, the farm is my father-in-law’s farm. It’s not my husband and my farm. It’s my father-in-law’s farm. And my husband and I have never gotten a penny of money from the farm.

Regarding the earmarks, I believe the right place to build projects is in the states and the states have to build roads and bridges. And I don’t apologize for building roads and bridges.

Michele Bachmann actually told two lies to Chris Wallace. She claimed that the farm belonged to her father in law, but what she didn’t say is that she was and still is a partner in the farm. Bachmann also stated that she or husband never made a penny from the family dairy farm, but her financial disclosure forms report that from 2006-2009 she made $32,503-$105,000 in profit off of the farm.
www.politicususa.com/en/bachmann-dairy-farm

Well, you certainly can't cut farm subsidies, where people like Michelle Bachman benefit. It's so much better to take food out of the mouths of children.

Can you please in logical order explain to me what Rep. Bachmann has to do with a discussion of WIC?

[ugonow]

you please in logical order explain to me what Rep. Bachmann has to do with a discussion of WIC?

Bachmann gets farm subsidies...Cutting farm subsidies would be taking food out of her foster kids mouths....Give it time.. Michelle Obama will be worked in with the food connection.....

[cme1201]

Aug 2, 2011 13:55:11 GMT -5 ugonow said:

you please in logical order explain to me what Rep. Bachmann has to do with a discussion of WIC?

Bachmann gets farm subsidies...Cutting farm subsidies would be taking food out of her foster kids mouths....Give it time.. Michelle Obama will be worked in with the food connection.....

So what I am hearing is Rep. Bachmann has nothing to do with anything I posted in the OP, there is no source sighted so I can not check against said source, so you are invoking Rep. Bachmann just to have a political figure that you can demonize.

Gotcha.

[ugonow]

So what I am hearing is Rep. Bachmann has nothing to do with anything I posted in the OP, there is no source sighted so I can not check against said source, so you are invoking Rep. Bachmann just to have a political figure that you can demonize.

Gotcha.

I had nothing to do with it, but if you insist, just to prevent an argument.If you go through the thread, I defended her...sort of....Are you stalking me for some reason?

[weltschmerz]

"Can you please in logical order explain to me what Rep. Bachmann has to do with a discussion of WIC? "

Sure. The discussions is about farm subsidies and WIC. Bachmann made a lot of money from farm subsidies. So evidently, it's OK to keep farm subsidies, but WIC gets cut.

[weltschmerz]

And yes, if you look back, I DID cite a source.

[floridayankee]

Aug 2, 2011 13:33:10 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Can you please in logical order explain to me what Rep. Bachmann has to do with a discussion of WIC?

I think I can help. The house rejected a democratic plan to eliminate farm subsidies as well as a republican plan to restrict subsidies. It's obviously Bachmann's fault.

Jeez, CME.....Keep up, would ya!

[ameiko]

Aug 2, 2011 10:35:03 GMT -5 ugonow said:

the Womens,Infants,and Children nutrition program, and then vote to save farm subsidies from any cuts------------" The House also turned away proposals that would have limited farm subsidy payments to farmers above certain amounts or certain income levels.

By a 154-262 vote, members rejected an amendment from Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) that would prohibit more than $125,000 in subsidies from being paid to farmers. Blumenauer and his supporters argued unsuccessfully that cutting these large subsidies would go a long way toward deficit reduction.

Similarly, the House voted 186-228 against language from Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) that would have prohibited the payment of farm subsidies to people with adjusted gross incomes above $250,000." --------------How is this rationalized in one's mind? Women and children don't have lobbiests with cash in hand?

Failing to see what one has to do with another... oh wait, they don't.

Hey, but if you want to feed the women and kids, please feel free to start up a charity and join one and work your bottom off for it. Stop using other people's money to feel good about yourself.

Oh, and for the record: I'm all for cutting farm subsidies.

[Don Perignon]

"Might be a bit of an exgeration on her part, but I have to give her credit for taking them in at all"

Whatever "credit" you assign should be reserved until you know how much compensation bachman received for being SuperMom... most "foster children" arrangements are accompanied by Social Security checks "for the children"; as a matter of fact, there are "professional" foster-parents out there whose entire income comes from "fostering" children for the state/feds.
Most of the publicized "altruism" I've ever seen (people tooting their own horns for recognition) has been far more about promoting their own self-interest ("pragmatically") than it has been about actually being charitable.
Remember how Al Capone used to fund "soup kitchens" in Chicago during the Depression years...

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

[ugonow]

Since I believe food self-sufficiency is both an economic and military necessity, I am willing to accept the necessity for some appropriate subsidies.

Do you think around thirty of our congressmen and women recieving them is appropriate?

[Deleted]

One of the huge problems with nationwide government programs is the huge difference in cost of living across the nation. These programs are not flexible & so they can't account for that difference.

Giving the normal WIC amount (whatever it is) to someone in NYC for instance might not be enough for them, yet where I live the allowance might be way more than they need. That's just because of the price difference. Same is true with any government program that has a standard amount across the country. That's one of the reasons that I don't feel the U.S. government should be running these type programs (& of course the other reason is that the government is inept at running or managing, or making laws for ANY program or business).

[pepper112765]

The cutting of the WIC program will definitely wreak havoc on the sales of Infant Formula particularly the makers of Similac and/or Enfamil as well dairy farmers, which is maybe why in particualr the farmers get to keep the subsidies. Although breast feeding by WIC is strongly encouraged, some qualifying women are unable to nurse and formula is very expensive. With respect to "regular" milk, one is required to buy more milk than can reasonably be consumed in a month. Considering the program is only for the nutrition of women who nurse, infants (formula drinking) and children that are under the age of 5, the most expensive purchases are the "milk" products. After the qualifying child(ren) turn 5, then a family is no longer eligible. WIC isn't something one can get indefinitely.

[shelby]

"formula is very expensive"

Yes indeedy i have seen the formula section at grocery stores locked up behind glass, I asked a worker why and they said it is the highest theft product in the store.

[Angel!]

Aug 3, 2011 10:59:09 GMT -5 pepper112765 said:

The cutting of the WIC program will definitely wreak havoc on the sales of Infant Formula particularly the makers of Similac and/or Enfamil as well dairy farmers, which is maybe why in particualr the farmers get to keep the subsidies.

Only because those 2 brands are seriously over-priced & you can get generic equivalents at half the cost. Right now the income qualification is 40K for a 4 person family. Cut that down to 30K & a family with a 35K income isn't just going to stop feeding their kid formula. You can get a weeks worth of the generic for $10-15 depending on where you shop. That isn't exactly a bank-breaking amount. Most people spend more on eating out each week than it costs to feed an infant with no dietary restrictions.