WHAT WE WANTED TO KNOW
According to a recent poll by The Economist and YouGov, over half of Americans consider the economy and taxes to be a very important issue.¹ With that in mind, here are some of the questions we asked Americans as we get closer to Tax Day:

• With Tax Day coming up, is Washington being a good steward of your tax dollars?
• Here are some examples of questionable expenses, is there anything that stands out to you?
• To bring down our nearly $17 trillion debt, do you think politicians should be raising taxes or reducing spending?²

TAXPAYER DOLLARS HARD AT WORK?
Government overspending has been a problem for years, and too often this spending is used for wasteful and inefficient programs. Below are just some of the programs that Washington has used taxpayer dollars to fund in the past:

• FBI Director and Attorney General used luxury jets for non-mission purposes: $11,400,000.³
• IRS funds Star Trek and Gilligan’s Island parody video: $60,000.⁴
• United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) pays farmers in one county not to farm their land: $2,100,000.⁵
• USDA internship program that hired just one full-time intern: $2,000,000.⁶
• Army spending on camouflage uniforms that actually made soldiers more visible: $5,000,000,000.⁷
• Stimulus grant to study correct condom use: $423,500.⁸
• Parking spaces for NIH employees: $5,891,100.⁹

REACTIONS TO WASHINGTON’S IRRESPONSIBLE SPENDING
Americans aren’t happy with continuing reports of Washington’s wasteful spending. Here are some of the things they had to say about taxes and government spending:

• “Washington has never been a good steward of my tax dollars.”
• “Why are we spending more than we have? A fourth grader could tell you that you can’t spend more money than you have.”
• “The money they are already taking from us should be used more wisely.”
• “After seeing that, they need to cut spending and they need to think responsibly with what they are doing with taxpayer money.”

Americans recognize that fiscal responsibility isn’t about gutting the essential services the government
provides. It’s about finding and cutting inefficient, unnecessary or duplicative programs. Washington
needs to realize that our overspending is unsustainable and make smart choices to cut spending that will
keep our economy on the right path.

In an April 24th press release, Lowenthal attacked the House Committee on Agriculture’s recent recommendation to cut $33 billion over 10 years from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), this federal food stamp program is, by the agency’s own admission, rampant with fraud. In fact, a March 2011 USDA summary report acknowledged that trafficking alone, defined as the sale of benefits to food retailers for cash, diverted $330 million between 2006 and 2008. That figure doesn’t include additional fraud perpetrated by program beneficiaries, who sell their benefits to others for a profit. Recent investigative reporting by David Goldstein at CBS 2 in Los Angeles suggests that abuses of this latter type are also widespread.

Stunningly, the USDA claims in the first paragraph of the 2011 summary that such fraud comes at no financial cost to the federal government–aka you and me. It is merely, the report notes, a black mark on the program’s mission and credibility. While one can’t deny the credibility problem, waste, fraud and abuse do indeed come at a high financial cost to taxpayers, particularly in the current challenging economy. Elected officials have a fiduciary duty to track and address such problems so that taxpayers do not continue to pay for programs that fail to work as intended. Throwing good money after bad helps no one, including those who legitimately face financial hardship.

Which reveals additional serious flaws in Lowenthal’s attack…

In the past 10 years, SNAP spending has nearly tripled. Much of that increase has occurred just in the last three years, with program spending more than doubling from $34.9 billion in 2008 to $76 billion in 2011. House Ag Committee Chair Frank Lucas (R-OK) acknowledges that SNAP now comprises nearly 80 percent of total USDA spending. These statistics reflect in large measure the Obama administration’s open and active efforts to boost rather than minimize dependence on SNAP through recruitment drives and incentive programs. President Obama did not earn the nickname “the Foodstamp President” without cause.

Ultimately, the $33 billion in cuts proposed by the House Committee on Agriculture represents, over the coming 10 years, a meager 4 percent of this out-of-control, wasteful, and abuse-ridden SNAP spending. More embarrassingly for Senator Lowenthal, the House Committee has plainly stated that the cuts are primarily aimed at closing loopholes and reworking the program’s eligibility triggers in order to minimize precisely this waste and abuse epidemic within the program in order to benefit legitimate SNAP recipients and taxpayers alike. Two incentives for states administering the program would also be on the chopping block. However, in point of fact, not a single dollar of the proposed cuts would prevent the truly needy from receiving SNAP benefits. Nor would the cuts in any way reduce SNAP benefit levels.

Perhaps Senator Lowenthal could explain to us all his particular interest in maintaining fraud, waste, and abuse.

Or is it that, as usual, he just hasn’t done his homework?

Steve Foley
Republican Congressional Candidate, CA-47

Cross-posted from Steve Foley for Congress

Nanny-State Nutritionists

The focus of this latest caloric crackdown is government censorship of food advertising, disguised as “guidelines” crafted by the four federal agencies that wield extensive regulatory powers over the nation’s foodstuffs.[1] This so-called “Independent Working Group” (IWG) believes that suppressing advertising and promotion about dietary choices will eliminate obesity among the playground set—despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Congress established the IWG in the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act to “study” childhood obesity and present recommendations to lawmakers. It is a charge the regulators have stretched beyond recognition.

The group’s “principles”[2] set forth nutrition criteria—calories per serving, fat, sodium, and sugar content, among them—that would have to be met in order for a food product to be advertised or promoted, as well as allowable forms of marketing. The IWG defines “acceptable” foods as those that “make a meaningful contribution to a healthful diet” and “minimize consumption…of nutrients that could have a negative impact on health or weight.”

According to the IWG, the proposal is designed “to encourage children to choose” only the foods that comply with the group’s stringent standards. There is not a single mention of “parent,” “mother,” or “father” in the IWG’s 27 pages of “principles.”

Standards Violate First Amendment

It is all too convenient that the IWG formulated the advertising standards as “voluntary.” As such, they are not subject to the rulemaking requirements of regulatory mandates. If they were, a legal challenge would likely strike them down as an unconstitutional violation of free speech rights—firmly secured in precedent.

However, the ad restrictions are voluntary in name only. Food manufacturers can hardly ignore “recommendations” from the very federal agencies that exercise regulatory authority over their every move. It is akin to a cop asking for ID or to search one’s vehicle: While the law treats such citizen cooperation as voluntary, most individuals would not view it as such, nor would the police look kindly on anyone who denies their requests.

Government officials on more than one occasion have alluded to the potential for regulation if the industry does not voluntarily comply with advertising limits. The Federal Trade Commission, in fact, sought comment on whether the IWG guidelines would suffer from First Amendment issues if enacted into law.[3] And the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity report to the President suggests that failure to comply would provide sufficient cause for statutory limits on advertising: “Effective voluntary reform will only occur if companies are presented with sufficient reasons to comply,” the report states. “The prospect of regulation or legislation has often served as a catalyst for driving meaningful reform in other industries and may do so in the context of food marketing as well.”[4]

Moreover, the legitimate concern of advertisers that their failure to comply with voluntary requirements will trigger regulation will necessarily have a chilling effect on speech and thus makes even this “voluntary” program constitutionally suspect.

Beyond the constitutional concerns, the limits on food advertising carry economic consequences. Even the working group concluded that the guidelines would result in a 20 percent reduction in ad expenditures that would in turn cause losses of $28.3 billion in manufacturing and retail sales and 378,000 jobs lost by 2015. The costs will also be borne by children’s programming, which gets considerable sponsorship from the food industry.

Excessively Stringent

The IWG nutritional standards would restrict advertising to foods that contain no more than 1 gram of saturated fat; zero trans fats; no more than 13 grams of sugar; and less than 210 milligrams of sodium. In effect, this limits advertising “for children”[5] to fruits and vegetables, whole grains, fish, extra-lean meat and poultry, eggs, fat-free or low-fat milk, and nuts, seeds, and beans.

These standards are far more stringent than any other government nutrition guidelines, including those established by the USDA,[6] upon which most federal food programs are based. Peanut butter and jelly, tomato soup, and 2 percent milk fail to meet the nutrition standards, as would 100 percent juices, many yogurts, and even a variety of frozen vegetables. Indeed, many of the USDA’s own recipe recommendations for children wouldn’t pass muster, including Lentil Chili, Roasted Root Vegetables, and Bulgur Chickpea Salad.[7]

So extreme are the standards, in fact, that 88 of the 100 most advertised foods and beverages would be in violation, according to the Association of National Advertisers.[8]

The criteria that defines advertising “targeted to children” is likewise excessive. For television, it is advertising that accompanies programming for which children ages 2–11 comprise an audience share of 30 percent or more or 20 percent of adolescents ages 12–17 years. That means only government-approved advertising for such programs as the Super Bowl, American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, Glee, and Modern Family.

The restrictions extend well beyond television, encompassing virtually every means of promotion, including radio and print advertising; company-sponsored Web sites, ads on third-party Internet sites, and other digital advertising (including e-mail and text messaging); packaging and point-of-purchase displays and other in-store marketing tools; advertising and product placement in movies, videos, and video games; premium distribution, contests, and sweepstakes; cross promotions, including character licensing and toy co-branding; sponsorship of events, sports teams, and individual athletes; word-of-mouth and viral marketing; celebrity endorsements; in-school marketing; philanthropic activity tied to branding opportunities; and a catch-all “other” category.

Advertising Does Not Cause Childhood Obesity

The standards are based on the notion that food advertising causes obesity in children. But a variety of research has failed to establish any such link. For example, the Institute of Medicine reported in 2006 that there was insufficient evidence to associate advertising with the diets of adolescents.[9]

In fact, children’s exposure to food advertising has lessened significantly in recent years. The average number of food and beverage advertisements viewed by kids (ages 2 to 11) during children’s programming fell by 50 percent between 2004 and 2010, according to the Georgetown Economic Service.[10] During the six-year period, ads for snack bars fell by nearly 100 percent, cookies by 99 percent, soft drinks by 96 percent, and frozen and refrigerated pizza by 95 percent.

The scholarly literature offers solid evidence that physical inactivity—not food intake—is the primary cause of childhood obesity. As noted by Dr. Mark McClellan, a former commissioner of the FDA, actual levels of caloric intake among the young haven’t appreciably changed over the last 20 years. “The lack of evidence of a general increase in energy [food] intake among youths despite an increase in the prevalence of overweight suggests that physical inactivity is a major public health challenge in this age group.”[11]

Nor have advertising crackdowns elsewhere proven effective. Quebec banned food advertising to children in 1980, but childhood obesity rates there are no different from those in other Canadian provinces.[12] Sweden’s advertising ban has existed for more than 10 years with no discernable effect on obesity rates.[13]

Congress Should Halt Perverse Plan

The IWG appears to have also overlooked the fact that now, more than ever, parents themselves can restrict children’s access to advertising by television, cable, and DVR settings that block or skip commercials.

For all of these reasons, the crackdown on free speech represents flawed policy. It increases government interference into decisions that are the sole province of parents and tramples on constitutionally protected free speech rights. Congress should put a stop to this ineffective and costly attack on consumer choice and free speech.

(Diane Katz is Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.)

Originally posted @ The Heritage Foundation.

Related:

[list type="tick"] [li]

Obama’s regulatory flood is drowning economic growth – Washington Examiner

The Job Wrecker in Chief - David Limbaugh

The slippery slope of “voluntary” guidelines - Michelle D. Bernard

[/li] [/list]

Last Fall, a former union member named Lana spoke with him about a program called proration, designed by the  USDA SRS (Social Rehabilitative Services). The proration program appropriates funds to both regular citizens and illegals, but it reportedly  gives preferential treatment to illegal immigrants. Nationwide, this amounts to untold millions of dollars a day of your tax dollars:

As Chaffee mentioned in his speech, SRS proration was ended in Kansas effective July 1, 2011.

KMUW, Witchita Public Radio reported:

Kansas Secretary of Social and Rehabilitation Services Rob Siedlecki has announced that starting July 1 the practice of proration within the welfare office will cease as a policy in Kansas.

Members of the political group, Union of Patriots applauded the effort Wednesday saying the state could save half a million dollars per day. Union of Patriots co-founder, Dale Geezer, says there’s been scant attention given to the fact that the practice of proration will end.

He says proration is a policy designed by the USDA of evaluating eligibility within the welfare system. Geezer claims the result of proration has provided undocumented immigrants preferential treatment over what he calls legitimate citizens in Kansas.

“Today, if you are a family of four with two illegal parents and two children born here and you make $2,790 dollars, you get food stamps and sundry, other welfare benefits,” said Geezer. “However, if you happen to be a legitimate citizen and all four members of the family happen to be born here and natural citizens and you make $2,790 dollars a month, you are ineligible for any benefits. This is an absolute unadulterated outrage. It ceases in Kansas July 1.”

Union of Patriots are working on Missouri, now. Hopefully, more states will soon follow suit.

Cross-posted at Nice Deb

SAN DIEGO (CBS 8) – The Obama Administration is getting ready to ditch the Food Pyramid, a symbol of healthy eating for the last two decades.

In its place, officials are “dishing up” a simple, plate-shaped symbol, sliced into wedges for basic food groups and half-filled with fruits and vegetables.

Mr Wiesner told the Sun: “It broke him. It killed him. He took a long time to die, but it started that night. Previously the drugs were a crutch, but after that they became a necessity.

He calls himself a reluctant cultural warrior, but Andrew Breitbart has always seemed ready to rush to the front lines. And depending on your view, he’s also been described as a conservative propagandist and a Tea Party loyalist. His new book is called “Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World.” Not a very modest title.

In the book, you will find scarcely a word about one of his most infamous episodes involving Shirley Sherrod, the former USDA official fired after a video of her was posted on a Breitbart Web site. Sherrod is now suing Breitbart for accusing her of racism after showing, quote, “a deceptively edited clip.” And I’m delighted to say that Andrew Breitbart joins us now.

In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.

BASHIR: Let me ask you a question.

This week, Marilyn Davenport, a Republican official in Orange County, sent an e-mail to a number of colleagues featuring President Obama dressed and in a family of apes [image below].

BREITBART: Are you asking me about this?

What do I have to do with that?

BASHIR: I want to ask you, what do you think of that image?

BREITBART: It`s deplorable. It`s — it`s deplorable. It`s reprehensible. And you`re trying to create…

BASHIR: When…

BREITBART: — you`re trying to insinuate that I`m a racist here, which is what MSNBC does to conservatives every single day. This entire context of this conversation is what the NAACP and what the Democratic Party has been doing to the Tea Party

“Every single point that you offered is straight out of George Soros’ funded and John Podesta’s led Media Matters. You are playing the role of being duped [by] John Podesta and Eric Boehlert and Media Matters. Every time I appear on MSNBC, or a lot of times, there is Eric Boehlert from Media Matters to be right there. Those are talking points straight out of Media Matters,”