Tag: Benishek

An appropriations bill that does not specifically deny USDA funding to conduct inspections of horsemeat for human consumption could allow horse processing to resume in the U.S. The Fiscal Year 2012 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (H.R. 2112), or the so-called "Mini-bus Bill," establishes 2012 budgets for the Department of Agriculture and several other federal departments through September 2012.

Prior to 2005 USDA personnel carried out horsemeat food safety inspections at U.S. horse processing plants. In 2006 Congress voted to strip the USDA of funding for horsemeat inspections. USDA personnel continued to conduct those inspections on a fee-for-service basis until 2007 when a federal court judge ruled against the arrangement. The combination of the funding prohibition and the court decision resulted in the decline of the horse processing industry in the U.S.

Language stripping the USDA of horsemeat inspection funding did not appear in the original fiscal 2012 House Agricultural Appropriations bill when it was introduced earlier this year. However, the House Appropriations Committee adopted an amendment prohibiting the use of federal dollars to fund USDA horsemeat inspections. No such provision was contained in the Senate's version of the Appropriations bill.

After passage in their respective legislative houses, both the House and Senate bills were referred to a conference committee. The resulting consolidated bill did not contain the defunding language. The committee recommended the bill for passage, then forwarded to the full House and Senate for vote. On Nov. 17 the full House passed H.R. 2112 by 298-121 vote. The Senate also passed the bill by a 70 to 30 vote. President Barak Obama signed the bill into law on Nov. 18. As a result, the USDA could conduct horsemeat inspections at least until September 2012.

Michigan US Reps. Benishek, Camp, Clarke, Dingell, Kildee, Levin, Peters, Rogers, and Upton voted YES.  Both Michigan US Sens. Stabenow and Levin voted YES too.

Should it hang until the next election is over? Should we update with fresh scarlet letters from even more recent miserable failures of those who are hanging patiently for all this time? Should we offer a positive spin on their recent accomplishments and then sigh, noting how they really screwed up before, and then point again to the left?

While waiting for some discussion on this, it should be noted that our concern about the debt ceiling being increased has been vindicated.  We were right, and those guys on the left were not. The trillions they added to the burden our children must carry, cannot be voted away as easily as their tenure in congress.  Experience DOES account for something, but it is not an excuse for repeatedly ducking responsibility, and they are indeed responsible for that fact.

Good men who screw up need to admit and own up to it, and offer their mistakes as lessons.  Personally, I see genuine contrition as a character building exercise.

If you are from Michigan, have a desire to meet a lot of new people and serve your country, NOW is the time.  A few hard workers with soul are needed in the following districts ... uh  well ALL of the following districts except Congressional District #3 which is occupied by Justin Amash:

"The Budget Control Act trades $21 billion in cuts next year for a debt ceiling increase of $2.1 trillion. That's one penny in cuts for each dollar of new debt. The bill does not seriously address the drivers of the federal government's fiscal crisis. It does not improve entitlement programs.

"It does not include a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I cannot in good conscience vote for so little reform when so much is at stake.

Again, the Michigan Republican delegation sans one, failed to perform its duty on the most important vote of their lifetimes.  They missed an opportunity to stand for a permanence of fiscal prudence.

MICHIGAN DELEGATION VOTE The complete list here

Democrats
Clarke, N; Conyers, N; Dingell, Y; Kildee, Y; Levin, Y; Peters, N.

Republicans
Amash, N; Benishek, Y; Camp, Y; Huizenga, Y; McCotter, Y; Miller, Y; Rogers, Y; Upton, Y; Walberg, Y.

As for those Democrats who voted no, they wanted even more from Boehner.  However, this president will take whatever rope he has been given and run with it.

After spending a good part of last year blogging for the man who would take the First District of Michigan away from liberal Bart Stupak, and put it back into the hands of mainstream conservatism, I take serious umbrage at the use of the words, "Stupak amendment" and "Stupak language."

Bart Stupak was not a conservative Democrat, nor was he a "blue dog."  His "Stupak amendment" was actually the "Stupak/Pitts amendment," and it became known as the "Stupak amendment" only because he was on television and radio constantly for a month prior to the vote on Obamacare saying that the bill would not be passed without "his" amendment, banning the use of federal funds for abortions.  His constituency, and many social conservatives throughout the nation thought that Stupak was going to stop Obamacare.  After watching Bart at town halls and on tv and radio, I knew he was not going to vote against Obamacare.  He said so at a Cheboygan Town Hall, and took a position of high morality on abortion against the likes of Pelosi and Obama.  He ended up getting a useless executive order which meant nothing from the most pro-abortion President this nation has ever seen.