another gop no

Don Quixote

cancer survivor
Contributor
the old too expensive and too much regulation excuse


this is why we have outbreaks of unsafe food


GOP senator says he will hold up food safety bill
9/15/2010 5:03:00 PM

Associated Press/AP Online
By MARY CLARE JALONICK

WASHINGTON - A Republican senator is threatening to hold up food safety legislation that would give the Food and Drug Administration more power to prevent outbreaks, saying Democrats must find a way to pay for it.
Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma says the bill, which has stalled in the Senate for more than a year, adds to the deficit and expands the power of an already troubled agency.
Advocates for the bill say it is crucial to strengthen the nation's toothless food safety oversight and would help prevent large outbreaks of tainted food.
Coburn's office said Wednesday the senator will object to bringing up the bill if his concerns aren't addressed. His objections are a major blow to supporters' chances of passing the legislation this year.
The legislation would give the agency more power to recall tainted products, require more inspections of food processing facilities and require producers to follow stricter standards for keeping food safe. Currently, the FDA does not have the authority to order a recall and must negotiate recalls with the affected producers. The agency rarely inspects many food facilities and farms, visiting some every decade or so and others not at all.
Supporters are scrambling to get the bill on the legislative calendar as Congress' remaining work days are dwindling this year. Many were hoping that the recent recall of a half-billion eggs from two Iowa farms that sickened at least 1,500 people would give the bill momentum. The farms had never been inspected by the FDA, but the agency found rodents, seeping manure and even maggots when inspectors visited after the recall.
Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said Congress has allocated more money to the FDA in recent years but that the legislation would direct the agency how to spend it.
"Nobody wants to be standing in the way of solutions when another outbreak could occur," she said.
The legislation has broad bipartisan backing and support from the food and restaurant industries.The House passed the bill over a year ago.
Coburn agrees that food safety needs a complete overhaul but says the current effort is disingenuous because there is not any money dedicated to it. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it will cost $1.4 billion.
"Without paying for this bill, at best we are just passing it for a press release, and at worst, we shackle the FDA with unfunded mandates," his office said in a statement on his website.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Tuesday that he had thought the bill was cleared but there was "still a Republican senator saying no."
"We hope within the next 24 hours he will say yes," Reid said. "That's where we are."
A service of YellowBrix, Inc.
 
Coburn agrees that food safety needs a complete overhaul but says the current effort is disingenuous because there is not any money dedicated to it. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it will cost $1.4 billion.
"Without paying for this bill, at best we are just passing it for a press release, and at worst, we shackle the FDA with unfunded mandates," his office said in a statement on his website.
.

Totally agree with this Senator. Where is the merit in passing legislation that is unfunded? He is simply making a statement... if you want teeth in this bill... lets fund it!! Democrats have been wasting a lot of time grandstanding ..... its getting old and its a major reason why they are going to be removed from power.
 
Being fiscally responsible and seeking a way to make it deficit neutral is not "no", it is simply the right thing to do.
 
the old too expensive and too much regulation excuse


this is why we have outbreaks of unsafe food


GOP senator says he will hold up food safety bill
9/15/2010 5:03:00 PM

Associated Press/AP Online
By MARY CLARE JALONICK

WASHINGTON - A Republican senator is threatening to hold up food safety legislation that would give the Food and Drug Administration more power to prevent outbreaks, saying Democrats must find a way to pay for it.
Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma says the bill, which has stalled in the Senate for more than a year, adds to the deficit and expands the power of an already troubled agency.
Advocates for the bill say it is crucial to strengthen the nation's toothless food safety oversight and would help prevent large outbreaks of tainted food.
Coburn's office said Wednesday the senator will object to bringing up the bill if his concerns aren't addressed. His objections are a major blow to supporters' chances of passing the legislation this year.
The legislation would give the agency more power to recall tainted products, require more inspections of food processing facilities and require producers to follow stricter standards for keeping food safe. Currently, the FDA does not have the authority to order a recall and must negotiate recalls with the affected producers. The agency rarely inspects many food facilities and farms, visiting some every decade or so and others not at all.
Supporters are scrambling to get the bill on the legislative calendar as Congress' remaining work days are dwindling this year. Many were hoping that the recent recall of a half-billion eggs from two Iowa farms that sickened at least 1,500 people would give the bill momentum. The farms had never been inspected by the FDA, but the agency found rodents, seeping manure and even maggots when inspectors visited after the recall.
Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said Congress has allocated more money to the FDA in recent years but that the legislation would direct the agency how to spend it.
"Nobody wants to be standing in the way of solutions when another outbreak could occur," she said.
The legislation has broad bipartisan backing and support from the food and restaurant industries.The House passed the bill over a year ago.
Coburn agrees that food safety needs a complete overhaul but says the current effort is disingenuous because there is not any money dedicated to it. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it will cost $1.4 billion.
"Without paying for this bill, at best we are just passing it for a press release, and at worst, we shackle the FDA with unfunded mandates," his office said in a statement on his website.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Tuesday that he had thought the bill was cleared but there was "still a Republican senator saying no."
"We hope within the next 24 hours he will say yes," Reid said. "That's where we are."
A service of YellowBrix, Inc.

I guess the question to you DQ, which you seemed to have already answered, is should there be a way to pay for this or do you deem this of such importance that it is worth adding to the deficit for and paying later?
 
I guess the question to you DQ, which you seemed to have already answered, is should there be a way to pay for this or do you deem this of such importance that it is worth adding to the deficit for and paying later?



Did the GOP reject the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy because they weren't paid for? Are they rejecting them now, or are they holding cuts for the middle hostage to the wealthiest's cuts being made permanent, despite the huge increase to the deficit? Did they reject the invasion of Iraq because it wasn't funded (never mind thaty it was illegal)?

Just curious about their apparently selective fiscal restraint.
 
Totally agree with this Senator. Where is the merit in passing legislation that is unfunded? He is simply making a statement... if you want teeth in this bill... lets fund it!! Democrats have been wasting a lot of time grandstanding ..... its getting old and its a major reason why they are going to be removed from power.

Wasn't it Pelosi who promised "no more unfunded mandates"?
 
Did the GOP reject the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy because they weren't paid for? Are they rejecting them now, or are they holding cuts for the middle hostage to the wealthiest's cuts being made permanent, despite the huge increase to the deficit? Did they reject the invasion of Iraq because it wasn't funded (never mind thaty it was illegal)?

Just curious about their apparently selective fiscal restraint.

It was their out of control spending that got them thrown out of office. Someone wanting to see the glass as half full might say they learned something (of course we all know they didn't but we can hope).
 
Did the GOP reject the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy because they weren't paid for? Are they rejecting them now, or are they holding cuts for the middle hostage to the wealthiest's cuts being made permanent, despite the huge increase to the deficit? Did they reject the invasion of Iraq because it wasn't funded (never mind thaty it was illegal)?

Just curious about their apparently selective fiscal restraint.

Framing the argument "tax cuts have to be paid for" is disingenuous. The description should be spending cuts need to be made to offer tax relief for all. That was the congressional mistake about Bush tax cuts. True fiscal conservativism couples tax relief with spending cuts.


Numerous dems recognize the need to leave ALL of the Bush tax relief in place. The middle class aren't the ones who create jobs. In deed, it is dems attempting to use the "tax cuts for the rich" slogan in a purely political attempt to paint the GOP as only caring about the wealthy...
 
Framing the argument "tax cuts have to be paid for" is disingenuous. The description should be spending cuts need to be made to offer tax relief for all. That was the congressional mistake about Bush tax cuts. True fiscal conservativism couples tax relief with spending cuts.


Numerous dems recognize the need to leave ALL of the Bush tax relief in place. The middle class aren't the ones who create jobs. In deed, it is dems attempting to use the "tax cuts for the rich" slogan in a purely political attempt to paint the GOP as only caring about the wealthy...


Disingenuous? Hardly. You righties need to learn how to read a P&L statement. Whether you decrease revenues or increase spending, the result is exactly the same, a decreased bottom line. And when you decrease revenues AND increase spending, like Bush did, you get a huge fucking decrease in the bottom line. The wealthy received a disproportionate amount of the tax cuts, considering that the top 1% do not create jobs, they destroy them with speculation. The middle class does create jobs, most of the small business owners are middle to upper-middle class, and rarely have taxable incomes of $250,000. A small business may have gross revenues of $250,000, but no business pays taxes on its gross revenues. The Bush tax cuts were a favor to his political base, as he put it "the haves and the have mores".

You can't even buy a clue.
 
Totally agree with this Senator. Where is the merit in passing legislation that is unfunded? He is simply making a statement... if you want teeth in this bill... lets fund it!! Democrats have been wasting a lot of time grandstanding ..... its getting old and its a major reason why they are going to be removed from power.
I have to support him too. We have far to many unfunded mandates as it is. I'd like to see those made unlawful.
 
You allocate money to a bill when you do the budget.

:facepalm:

Coburn should be given a death sentence for every person that dies because of his evil actions.
 
Totally agree with this Senator. Where is the merit in passing legislation that is unfunded? He is simply making a statement... if you want teeth in this bill... lets fund it!! Democrats have been wasting a lot of time grandstanding ..... its getting old and its a major reason why they are going to be removed from power.

there is no longer budget to cut and there is no surplus (thanks to bush) so it must be deficit

the need is now, not when we have the money or get around to it or would you rather take the risk or impose the risk on others
 
DQ, the CBO predicted budget surpluses well into the future in 2000. Did you really believe that? Did you really believe that tech start-ups with little or no revenues were going to continue to garner multi-billion dollar valuations well into future? Should there have been no tech bubble burst and thus no 2001 recession?

That's pretty much what you are saying.
 
DQ, the CBO predicted budget surpluses well into the future in 2000. Did you really believe that? Did you really believe that tech start-ups with little or no revenues were going to continue to garner multi-billion dollar valuations well into future? Should there have been no tech bubble burst and thus no 2001 recession?

That's pretty much what you are saying.

no

i predict that there will be no surplus this year or next year, however, we may achieve a balanced budget by the year after that, if bho gets his tax cuts for the middle class and not for the wealthy
 
no

i predict that there will be no surplus this year or next year, however, we may achieve a balanced budget by the year after that, if bho gets his tax cuts for the middle class and not for the wealthy
You are a bright eyed optimist!
 
no

i predict that there will be no surplus this year or next year, however, we may achieve a balanced budget by the year after that, if bho gets his tax cuts for the middle class and not for the wealthy

wait you seriously think we can have a balanced budget in two years simply by not extending the tax cuts for those above $250k? Come on now DQ you know better than that.
 
Back
Top