Belching Cows and Gassy Assumptions
by Paul Jacob, Contributing Author: Give New York Times reporter Robert Pear, or perhaps an editor, credit for a provocative headline: "In Final Spending Bill, Salty Food and Belching Cows Are Winners." This to explain a $1.1 trillion dollar spending bill.
Where's the money going?
Not to salty food or belching cows. The Times explains that, "like many of its predecessors," the bill bulges with provisions "to satisfy special interests." For example?
Pear quickly highlights how "ranchers were spared [from] having to report on pollution from manure," schools from having to reduce salt or increase whole grain in their lunches, insurance companies from relinquishing tax breaks. These provisions, which incur no new spending, are lumped with one that does involve spending at taxpayer expense, a subsidy for promoting Nevada.
There's something odd about this sampling of budgetary ingredients. Isn't there a difference between being left alone and receiving a subsidy or other favor at the expense of others? Because that's the kind of fundamental distinction blurred or obliterated when all budgetary things applying to particular groups are treated as "stuff to satisfy special interests."
Politicians concoct zillions of ways to burden and bully people; proposed targets are, sure, "special interests" who may then beg for reprieves. But unlike the beneficiaries of specific subsidies or competitor-stomping regulations, we've all got a stake in not being harassed.
Protecting our lives and freedom is what government is properly for. And minding our own business is the opposite of interfering with somebody else's.
This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
---------
Paul Jacobs is author of Common Sense which provides daily commentary about the issues impacting America — and about the citizens who are doing something about them. He is a contributing author on the ARRA News Service.
Tags: Paul Jacob, Common Sense, Spending Bill, Salty Food, Belching Cows, earmarks, subsidy, regulations, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Where's the money going?
Not to salty food or belching cows. The Times explains that, "like many of its predecessors," the bill bulges with provisions "to satisfy special interests." For example?
Cartoon by AF "Tony" Branco |
There's something odd about this sampling of budgetary ingredients. Isn't there a difference between being left alone and receiving a subsidy or other favor at the expense of others? Because that's the kind of fundamental distinction blurred or obliterated when all budgetary things applying to particular groups are treated as "stuff to satisfy special interests."
Politicians concoct zillions of ways to burden and bully people; proposed targets are, sure, "special interests" who may then beg for reprieves. But unlike the beneficiaries of specific subsidies or competitor-stomping regulations, we've all got a stake in not being harassed.
Protecting our lives and freedom is what government is properly for. And minding our own business is the opposite of interfering with somebody else's.
This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
---------
Paul Jacobs is author of Common Sense which provides daily commentary about the issues impacting America — and about the citizens who are doing something about them. He is a contributing author on the ARRA News Service.
Tags: Paul Jacob, Common Sense, Spending Bill, Salty Food, Belching Cows, earmarks, subsidy, regulations, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
1 Comments:
Do people not understand that there were millions and MILLIONS of "belching" ruminates on this continent long before white man came along?? Just bison alone ran in unbelievable huge herds, not to speak of elk, sheep, goats, antelope, deer, etc.! Imagine what they did to a river/creek when crossing...but nature handled it fine. In Arkansas, it is recorded that there were herds of deer of over 100 each in the 1800's. Not to speak of bison, elk, etc. One man in Marion county reported that you could literally stand in your doorway and pick what animal you wanted to shoot for dinner, they were so thick (read the accounts by S.C. Turnbo for starters). Cattle herds never came close to numbering as high as the wildlife originally did. Now, also take this into consideration....American cattle herds have been shrinking for decades. Not growing, shrinking. Several factors - cattlemen getting older and retiring/dying without youngsters coming up to take their place. Droughts in big cattle states like Texas, Okla., etc. have taken another toll on the numbers of herds. Sky high prices on cattle right now are causing producers to sell and buyers to not buy (thus starting a new herd). Most are going to slaughter. Most Americans also don't know that the U.S. has been a net IMPORTER of millions and millions of TONS of beef for many years now. American cattle producers don't come close to supplying enough beef for our own people. We import as much as we can from nations like Australia, Canada, Mexico, etc. Bringing in cheap beef hurts American producers so more sell out. This whole "belching" thing is a scam (as is "global warming") and is more about taking control of private property rights and our food than it is about the "climate". This is also connected to the U.N.'s Agenda 21. Speaking as a former commercial cattle producer/grain elevator/feed store owner/commercial wheat farmer (still own farm ground in another state).
Post a Comment
<< Home