Tag Archives: United States Department of Agriculture

Cutting Government Spending By Improving The Economy

Posted on by

Last Thursday, Breitbart posted an article about the declining number of Americans using the SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) program. The program was altered in 2013 to add a work requirement to the program, but the Obama administration made it very easy for states with high unemployment numbers to waive that work requirement, and many states did. Now that fewer people are unemployed, many of those state waivers are no longer in force.

The article reports:

Enrollment in the food stamp program plunged by more than 1.3 million since Trump’s inauguration month, according to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The USDA data reveals that the number of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants fell from 42,676,312 in January 2017 when Trump took office to 41,324,904 in December 2017—a decrease of 1,351,408.

Although enrollment in SNAP sharply increased by 3.5 million during the first month of fiscal year (FY) 2018 (October 2017) due to temporary SNAP enrollment in hurricane-affected states, the data shows that enrollment in the food stamp program has declined on the whole over the first calendar year of Trump’s presidency.

The most recent data of food stamp participation available reveals that from November 2017 to December 2017, 333,984 people discontinued their participation in SNAP.

The number of people dropping off the food stamp rolls is a continuation of a bigger trend that has been taking place since 2013.

Food stamp enrollment steadily declined after 2013, when participation in the government program swelled to 47.6 million—the highest amount it has ever been since former President Lyndon Johnson authorized the creation of the food stamp program in 1964. Taxpayers spent $79.8 million on SNAP when enrollment reached its peak in 2013.

After 2013, enrollment in SNAP declined as states passed laws requiring food stamp recipients to work, volunteer, be in school, or take part in job training for a set number of hours a week to receive food stamps. The improving economy also contributed to the continuing decline in food stamp usage.

The decline in enrollment is due to both the requirement that food stamp recipients work and the improving economy. Most of the work requirements are very easily met–volunteer work, job training, attending school–things that will help equip a person to find a job or find a better job. Ideally the aim of any government assistance program should be to help people become successful enough not to need the program. Unfortunately it does not always work that way. The danger (and we have watched this happen) in creating a government assistance program is that a giant bureaucracy is created to run the program. Obviously the people in the bureaucracy managing that program need people in the program in order for the bureaucracy to continue. That has an impact on the bureaucrats desire to see people leave the program. Somehow we have to find a way to motivate those in the bureaucracy overseeing assistance programs (and those in Congress) of creating a situation where these programs are no longer needed.

How Do Federal Regulations Affect You?

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Daily Signal posted an article entitled, “The Federal Regulations That Affect Your Thanksgiving Foods.” Federal regulations seem like a remote concept (unless you are trying to run a small business and adhere to them), so I thought this article needed to be shared.

The article reports:

Let us also give thanks that the Obama administration will soon cease, albeit leaving behind more than 21,000 regulations that President Barack Obama’s regulators issued, and which increased regulatory costs by more than $100 billion annually.

The burden of this vast administrative state is crushing America’s entrepreneurial spirit, productivity, and economic growth.

Independent estimates find that total regulatory costs are exceeding $2 trillion annually—more than is collected in income taxes each year.

So what are some of the regulations that impact Thanksgiving?

Turkey. Title 9, Part 381.76, of the Code of Federal Regulations directs turkey inspectors on the proper method of examining a frozen bird, to wit: “If a carcass is frozen, it shall be thoroughly thawed before being opened for examination by the inspector. Each carcass, or all parts comprising such carcass, shall be examined by the inspector, except for parts that are not needed for inspection.”

Cranberries. Title 7, Part 929, establishes a “marketing committee” overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to set quotas on the volume of cranberries shipped to handlers from growers in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island, New York. The grower “allotments” help to ensure that the price of cranberries remains artificially high.

Bread/Rolls. Title 21, Part 136, requires anything labeled as “bread” in a bakery to weigh one-half pound or more after cooling. To be legally called a “roll,” each unit must weigh less than one-half pound after cooling.

Potatoes. Title 7, Part 51.1546, dictates the proportion of allowable defects among specific grades of spuds. Potatoes graded as “U.S. No. 1” may not exceed the following tolerances at the point of shipping: 5 percent for external defects, 5 percent for internal defects, and not more than a total of 1 percent for potatoes that are frozen or affected by soft rot or wet breakdown. An entirely different set of tolerances apply to U.S. No. 1 potatoes while en route or upon reaching the destination, while similar standards are also set for “commercial” grade potatoes, “U.S. No. 2” potatoes, and “off-size” potatoes.

The list goes on to include green beans, cornmeal (used in stuffing) and pecans. How did we ever exist when we simply bought produce from local farmers that they grew in the ground and sold? Incidentally, I am on my way to the Farmers’ Market this morning!

We can be thankful that this insanity will be coming to an end.

This Makes No Sense

Posted on by

When President Johnson began the “War on Poverty,” the idea was to help people get out of poverty and become working members of society. President Johnson wanted to make sure that in a land as rich as America, people did not go hungry or homeless. It was (and is) a laudable goal. It becomes a more difficult goal when it encounters the specter of human nature.

The Washington Free Beacon is reporting today on one of the programs that was set up to make sure no Americans would go hungry.

The article reports:

The number of individuals receiving benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, otherwise known as food stamps, has exceeded 45 million for 56 straight months, according to data released by the Department of Agriculture.

…The USDA has been tracking data on participation in the program since 1969, when average participation stood at 2,878,000. Since then, participation in the program has increased by more than 1,470 percent.

The number of food stamp recipients first exceeded 45 million in May 2011. Since then, the number has consistently exceeded 45 million, hitting a record high of nearly 47.8 million in December 2012.

Changes to food stamp policies made it easier for people to apply for benefits, made food stamps available to more people and the benefits became more generous, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“Economic factors alone do not fully explain the growth in SNAP participation,” states the agency. “Changes in SNAP policies, some of them associated with the 2002 and 2008 Farm Acts, have made benefits easier to apply for, available to more people, and more generous.”

There is a lesson here. The SNAP program was started with the best of intentions, but what it did was take charity out of the hands of the local church and the local community. The local church and the local community were in a position to know who actually needed help and who was taking advantage of the system. I have heard many stories from people who remember a time when their spouse was out of work and they found a bag of groceries on their front steps to get them through. Charity needs to return to a time when it was the result of personal caring. The obvious question here is how much of the SNAP money goes to food. We have all heard stories of people selling their SNAP coupons or EBT cards and spending the money on alcohol or drugs. We are not doing anyone a favor by supporting a destructive habit.

In April 2015 I reported the following:

A Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) spokesman tells the Associated Press that 12,000 non-disabled adults were in Maine’s SNAP program before Jan. 1 – a number that dropped to 2,680 by the end of March.

More than 9,000 Maine residents have been removed from the state’s food stamp program since Republican Gov. Paul LePage‘s administration began enforcing work and volunteer requirements.

I can’t image the impact it would have on the federal budget if all states followed the example of making people work a few hours a month in order to receive food stamps. The problem is that federal money makes people dependent, and dependency determines how people vote. Politicians who want to stay in office will work to make sure that the freebies keep on coming. Politicians who love America will begin to move to cut spending.

The Food Police Are At It Again

Posted on by

Hot Air reported yesterday that the Department of Agriculture is submitting new guidelines for food served at any day care facility (including some private homes) which qualify for federal funding. This is what happens when you take money from the government–they get their grubby little hands in your business and start trying to run things.

I am not opposed to feeding children healthy food if they are in daycare. I am opposed to the ridiculous.

The article reports:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is proposing strict new dietary guidelines for day cares that would prohibit them from frying food that is served to children.

Child care providers would also be formally required to provide children with water upon request, though they would face restrictions on how much apple juice and orange juice they serve.

One of the more notable provisions would restrict day cares from frying food on site and discourage them from serving pre-packaged fried food, such as chicken fingers, from the grocery store.

“While facilities would not be permitted under this proposed rule to prepare foods on site by frying them,” the USDA wrote in the Federal Register, “store-bought, catered, or pre-fried foods can still contribute large amounts of calories and saturated fat to a meal. Therefore, facilities are encouraged to limit all fried and pre-fried foods to no more than once per week.”

Some of my grandchildren would have starved to death without chilcken fingers, and just for the record, these grandchildren are not obese.

The article also includes this gem:

The USDA’s meal standards also include other proposed changes, such as allowing tofu as a meat alternative.

If children chose to eat tofu after they reach the age of consent, that is their privilege. However, forcing tofu on young children should be considered child abuse. I know there are many people who would disagree with the above statement, but it’s my blog, and that’s my opinion.

No Parent Who Reads This Will Be Surprised By It!

Posted on by

Yesterday’s U.K. Daily Mail reported that since Michelle Obama has overhauled the school lunch program, more than 1 million students have stopped buying school lunches. This has happened despite the fact that the number of students who receive free, taxpayer-subsidized lunches has risen sharply.

The article reports:

The Government Accountability Office, a watchdog agency inside the federal government, told members of Congress in a little-noticed January 28 report that participation in the school lunch program declined by 1,086,000 in that one year, the biggest drop on record.

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture to revise its school lunch standards to bring them in line with a new set of nutrition requirements.

The first lady rolled out the law’s final regulations in January 2012 with a presentation linked to her ‘Let’s Move!‘ children’s health initiative. Changes took effect that fall. In the ensuing nine months, 33 states cited ‘challenges with palatability – food that tasted good to students’ as one reason sales tumbled.

It is not news to any parent that an unsupervised child is not going to eat food he does not like. If Mrs. Obama truly wanted to end childhood obesity, she might begin with food processors who infuse everything we eat with additives and high fructose corn syrup. Going back to more natural food with less additives and bringing recess, tag, and dodge ball back to our schools might be a more successful approach.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Your Tax Dollars At Work

Posted on by

I have written a number of articles on the Pigford Settlement. (type ‘pigford’ in the search space above to read details). When Andrew Breitbart broke the story in 2010, he was attacked by pretty much everyone. Well, Andrew has been vindicated–by the New York Times of all people.

Breitbart.com reported on Friday that the New York Times reported that U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has likely enabled massive fraud in the Pigford series of legal settlements, in which black, Hispanic, female and Native American farmers have claimed to be victims of past discrimination.

The cost of the settlements could exceed $4.4 billion, with lawyers expected to gain more than $130 million in fees,

The article at Breitbart reports:

As president, Obama continued to support payouts for new groups of claimants while abandoning a review process that had been used to fight fraud. The aim was “buying the support” of minorities, according to the Times, while middlemen created a “cottage industry” in defrauding the government.

That’s our tax money that is being paid out in order to buy support for someone we may not necessarily support. Great.

The article further reports:

Much of the fraud was enabled by the Clinton and Obama administrations, and by members of Congress seeking to reward special interests. Then-Sen. Obama sponsored new Pigford legislation in 2007, while Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) threatened in 2009 to lead protests against the administration if it did not bend to the wishes of Hispanic claimants. 

Meanwhile, whole families, including young children, filed claims for past discrimination to reap $50,000 each in cash payouts. As yet, Congress has failed to investigate Pigford.

As Americans we have two choices–go broke as the tax man takes more and more of our hard-earned dollars or elect people to government who have some respect for the money the taxpayers work hard to earn. Ultimately, it is up to us.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Are We Giving Food Stamps To People Who Are Not American Citizens?

Posted on by

Why are we giving food stamps to people in America who are not American citizens? Wouldn’t that be a good thing for the sequester to cut? Wouldn’t it be cheaper simply to give them an airplane ticket (and an escort onto the airplane) home?

On Sunday the Daily Caller posted an article about food stamps for non-citizens.

The article reports:

After an effort to defund the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s food stamp outreach partnership with the Mexican government went down in committee Thursday, Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions continued to press the agency for more information about non-citizen participation in the food stamp program.

The article stated that since 2004 between 3 and 4 percent of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamp program is going to non-citizens.

Does anyone really believe that if you were an American living in another country (legal or otherwise), that the country you were living in would give you free food? This is simply another attempt by the government to make everyone in the country more dependent on the government for their existence.

It’s time to remember what America is about–equal opportunity, self reliance, and independence from intrusive government. We cannot financially afford to let the food stamps program continue to grow at its current rate, but more than that, we cannot afford to let the program create a mindset of dependency. There are signs in our national forests telling us not to feed the animals as they will grow lazy and dependent on humans for their food. Do we need a “Do Not Feed The People” sign?

One Place Congress Might Consider Cutting The Budget

Posted on by

CNS News reported on Friday about government required “Cultural Sensitivity Training” that cost the taxpayers $200,000. The training was given to United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) workers.

The article reports:

“In 2011 and 2012, the USDA paid Betances and his firm nearly $200,000 for their part in the “cultural transformation’ program.”

Within the videos, Betances has the audience repeat after him in a brainwashing fashion. Among the chants repeated are:

  • “Thank you, black folks,”
  • “The pilgrims were illegal aliens” and
  • “The pilgrims never gave their passport to the Indians.”

 In another clip, Betances states he doesn’t like the word “minorities” and prefers “emerging majorities.”

The obvious question is: why is the USDA holding “Cultural Sensitivity Training” sessions on “cultural transformation?”

Judicial Watch released the video below showing part of the session:

It seems to me that this is one area where the federal budget could easily be cut.

Why Are They Always After My Cheeseburger ?

Posted on by

This video is part of an article written by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air and posted today:

The video highlights the Department of Agriculture’s newsletter which promotes “Meatless Monday.”

The Department of Agriculture’s newsletter states:

“One simple way to reduce your environmental impact while dining at our cafeterias is to participate in the ‘Meatless Monday’ initiative ,” The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) July 23, 2012 “Greening Headquarters Update” read. “This international effort, as the name implies, encourages people not to eat meat on Mondays. Meatless Monday is an initiative of The Monday Campaign Inc. in association with the John Hopkins School of Public Health.”

Pointing to the United Nations as their informational authority, the USDA’s newsletter said that going meatless is good for the environment because “animal agriculture is a major source of greenhouse gases and climate change. It also wastes resources. It takes 7,000 kg of grain to make 1,000 kg of beef. In addition, beef production requires a lot of water, fertilizer, fossil fuels, and pesticides.” It further charged that heavy meat consumption has detrimental health effect.

Human beings have canine teeth, which are designed for eating meat. Why do these people think they should control our diets and determine what we eat when?

Enhanced by Zemanta

I Thought Only Bullies Stole Children’s Lunches

Posted on by

A website sponsored by the North Carolina Civitas Institute posted a story today about a Pre-K program in West Hoke Elementary School in Raeford where all of the students’ lunches were inspected by a government inspector for content.

One child was allowed to eat the lunch her mother had packed but was given cafeteria food because the lunch did not meet the inspector’s standard. The child’s lunch contained a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, apple juice and potato chips. The nutrition standards for pre-K lunch require milk, two servings of fruit or vegetable, bread or grains and a meat or meat alternative.

The article explains:

The mother says the girl was so intimidated by the inspection process that she was too scared to eat all of her homemade lunch. The girl ate only the chicken nuggets provided to her by the school, so she still didn’t eat a vegetable.

The mother says her daughter doesn’t like vegetables and – like most four year olds – will only eat them at home under close supervision.

The article reports:

The government inspector was from the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised program at the FPG Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The program gives schools a grade based on standards that include USDA meal guidelines enforced by the N.C. Division of Early Childhood Development.

The nutrition standards for pre-K lunch require milk, two servings of fruit or vegetable, bread or grains and a meat or meat alternative. The school didn’t receive a high grade from the January assessment because the home-made lunches didn’t meet those  guidelines. The mother points out the only thing on that list her daughter’s home lunch didn’t have was milk, so she doesn’t understand why the girl was given a complete school meal as a supplement.

When did any state or federal government get the right to go through a four-year old’s lunch bag. What constitution gives this authority? This is obscene!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why The Federal Government Is Going Broke

Posted on by

 

 

This photo is of the Gibbs family farm house c...

Image via Wikipedia

Big Government reported yesterday that Federal judge Paul Friedman has given final approval to a $1.2 billion government settlement with black farmers who claim they were unfairly denied loans and other assistance from the Agriculture Department over many years.

This is the second round of settlements in the 1999 Pigford case. As previously reported at rightwinggranny.com:

When some black farmers sued, claiming discrimination, the USDA agreed to pay $50,000 to every black person who was discriminated against.

According to the census, there were 18,000 black farmers in the country when the lawsuit was filed.  But 97,000 black ‘farmers” have applied for the money.

Black farmer Jimmy Dismuke says its fraud.  He said lawyers went to black churches and told people who had never farmed to file for the money.

”People say well, how do I qualify?” Dismuke told us.  “And then [the lawyers] started talking about potted plants.  They said if you had a potted plant, you can be a farmer.  And if you have a yard and you fertilize it, you’re a farmer.”

Just about anyone can say that they “attempted to farm.”  And the USDA–which did not keep all its loan records–has no way to refute that.  So the taxpayers pay, and pay.

If you follow the articles on the Pigford settlement previously posted at biggovernment.com, you learn that there is no standard of proof required for the payments. It is unfortunate that our government discriminated against black farmers, but I don’t believe that taxpayers should be required to pay reparations at a time when the country is spending itself into bankruptcy.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

A ‘Beam Me Up, Scotty, There’s No Intelligent Life Down Here’ Moment

Posted on by
Mrs. Nixon meeting with Big Bird from Sesame S...

Image by The U.S. National Archives via Flickr

Entertainment Weekly reported yesterday that Sesame Street is going to introduce a character to acquaint young children with the concept of poverty and hunger. Good grief. Can’t we let them be children for a few years?

The article reports:

The special will share the stories of real-life families to raise awareness of hunger issues in the United States, as well as strategies that have helped these families find food. The United States Department of Agriculture estimates that 17 million American children — nearly 1 in 4 — have limited or uncertain access to affordable and nutritious food. Walmart is sponsoring the show as part of a $1.5 million grant toward the initiative and holding screenings in select communities.

The concept of food insecurity is going to be spotlighted in this one-hour Sesame Street primetime special, Growing Hope Against Hunger. I am not unsympathetic to the problem of hunger in this country, although I wonder why it exists. We spend billions on food stamps to deal with the problem, where does the money go? I do have a problem with the idea of throwing this information at young children. Children do not have the same understanding as grown-ups as to the challenges of adulthood. To me, this is exposing young children to something that will make them fearful–I can’t imagine it having any other effect. Compassion is something children learn as they grow up. Showing images and stories of children who are hungry does not engender compassion–it just causes children to worry if this will happen to them. They are children.!!!

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Federal Government Did Something Right !

Posted on by

Yes, the federal government did something right–they turned down Mayor Bloomberg’s request to bar New York City food stamp recipients from using their food stamps to buy soda and other sugary drinks. I appreciate the compassion that Mayor Bloomberg has for those using food stamps–but these are grown-ups–the government has no business trying to control their diets. This is another example of the government giving someone money (or the equivalent) and then trying to control the person because the money was accepted.

The article reports:

Dr. (Thomas A.) Farley (New York City’s Health Commissioner), who said he was “very upset” by the decision, said that it “ really calls into question how serious the U.S.D.A. is about addressing the nation’s most serious nutritional problem.”

In October, city and state officials proposed a two-year experiment to see if the prohibition would reduce obesity among people who buy their groceries with food stamps. Dr. Farley said that about 57 percent of adults in the city and 40 percent of the children in its public schools were overweight or obese, and that obesity was especially rampant in low-income neighborhoods. Limiting consumption of sodas and other drinks with high sugar content, he argued, could help reverse that trend. 

Just because these people are on food stamps, they shouldn’t be used as guinea pigs to confirm some bureaucrat’s theory on why people are overweight!

The article reports Mayor Bloomberg’s statement regarding the federal decision:

“We think our innovative pilot would have done more to protect people from the crippling effects of preventable illnesses like diabetes and obesity than anything else being proposed elsewhere in this country — and at little or no cost to taxpayers,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a statement. “We’re disappointed that the federal government didn’t agree, and sorry that families and children may suffer from their unwillingness to explore our proposal. New York City will continue to pursue new and unconventional ways to combat the health problems that hurt New Yorkers and Americans from coast to coast.” 

We need less government–not more!

Enhanced by Zemanta

I’m From The Government, But I Have No Intention Of Helping You !

Posted on by

This article is based on a story at Politico. I strongly suggest that you follow the link to read the entire story–it is hilarious, and I can’t do it justice here. However, here are the basics. During his tour of the midwest, President Obama was asked by a farmer about coming regulations that might make it more difficult for him to run his farm. The President suggested that the farmer contact the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), as there are often rumors about coming regulations that are not true. A reporter at Politico decided to take the President’s advice and call the USDA. When the reporter called the USDA, he was told that the matter he was inquiring about fell under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), not the USDA. So the reporter called the EPA. The article is the story of what happened next. Please follow the link and read the entire article.

The bottom line of this story is simple–if you want answers, don’t call the government!

Enhanced by Zemanta