Yes that's true . The legislation that Madame Mimi recalled the
House for this week was a bailout for the states to fund the pay of public service employees.

To partially offset the cost of the bailout the House Dems cut to school lunch program by cutting $12 billion from the food stamp program.

Think about this a minute. To fund a $26 billion program that will bail out the unions and increase the funds public service employees can donate /launder to Democrat coffers, a program that is guaranteed that the money spend will filter to the private sector economy was cut .

Now the Dems are going to say in the upcoming campaign that the Republican forced them to make the cuts . This is a lie . Indeed ,the Republicans demanded that the Democrats live by their pledge to offset spending with cuts . But no one in the Republican camp told them which programs should be cut.

This was a political calculation by the Dems to blame the Republicans in an election year for cuts in a program at the core of the safety net.

The President signed this measure this week just about the time the First Lady Michelle (let them eat tapas) Obama came back from her $400K + taxpayer funded excellent Rainbow Tour. (I wonder if she will distribute organically grown veggies in lieu of gvt. Cheese.

Imagine the headlines a few years ago and the reaction it would've received :

First Lady returns from Luxury Vacation, Bush cuts Food Stamps to nation's Poor...Bush takes $12 billion in food out of the mouth of the most needy. Yeah the discussion would last weeks.

yes that's true . The legislation that Madame Mimi recalled the
House for this week was a bailout for the states to fund the pay of public service employees.

To partially offset the cost of the bailout the House Dems cut to school lunch program by cutting $12 billion from the food stamp program.

Think about this a minute. To fund a $26 billion program that will bail out the unions and increase the funds public service employees can donate /launder to Democrat coffers, a program that is guaranteed that the money spend will filter to the private sector economy was cut .

Now the Dems are going to say in the upcoming campaign that the Republican forced them to make the cuts . This is a lie . Indeed ,the Republicans demanded that the Democrats live by their pledge to offset spending with cuts . But no one in the Republican camp told them which programs should be cut.

This was a political calculation by the Dems to blame the Republicans in an election year for cuts in a program at the core of the safety net.

The President signed this measure this week just about the time the First Lady Michelle (let them eat tapas) Obama came back from her $400K + taxpayer funded excellent Rainbow Tour. (I wonder if she will distribute organically grown veggies in lieu of gvt. cheese.

Imagine the headlines a few years ago and the reaction it would've received :

First Lady returns from Luxury Vacation, Bush cuts Food Stamps to nation’s Poor...Bush takes $12 billion in food out of the mouth of the most needy. Yeah the discussion would last weeks.

Talk about the nanny state, your kids getting free lunches at school. What sort of double standard is this, you want to keep free lunches , teaching kids to expect a free lunch and yet you don't want to extend medical care to the poor. Get a life!

Clete BS .This is a program that helps the most needy in the country and is part of a legitimate safety net. It is not mandated government provided care for all. We also already have government programs to provide medical help for the most needy so you're reply is wrong in it's premise.

Clete BS .This is a program that helps the most needy in the country and is part of a legitimate safety net. It is not mandated government provided care for all. We also already have government programs to provide medical help for the most needy so you're reply is wrong in it's premise.

Tom, BS, you either have it for everyone or you don't do it. It is the greatest problem in social welfare, where and how to draw the line. Oddly enough that is what government is for and yet when they do their job and draw the line, you complain when this means they change the allocation of funds because they have redrawn the line, I know what is more important Tom, jobs for adults or lunches for children

This is not the school lunch program . The cuts are for food stamps .I corrected the OP .

This is not the school lunch program . The cuts are for food stamps .I corrected the OP .

Ok so they have changed the target population giving them the money before they need food stamps, big deal let's move on

Tom, BS, you either have it for everyone or you don't do it. It is the greatest problem in social welfare, where and how to draw the line. Oddly enough that is what government is for and yet when they do their job and draw the line, you complain when this means they change the allocation of funds because they have redrawn the line, I know what is more important Tom, jobs for adults or lunches for children

Clete, you're hilarious.

I would have expected you to be on the side of the safety net instead of cutting it to pay off rich union bigwigs. The only conclusion must be that even our Aussie liberals want to help set up the return to Feudalism so fervently pursued by our local progressives.

Clete, you're hilarious.

I would have expected you to be on the side of the safety net instead of cutting it to pay off rich union bigwigs. The only conclusion must be that even our Aussie liberals want to help set up the return to Feudalism so fervently pursued by our local progressives.

Safety nets are okay when they are properly administered, just because a program exists doesn't mean it is an efficient use of public funds. It so happens that I cannot find any confirmation of this change. I hope you find that hilarious

There are two types of Liberals in Australia, those who think that you can get something for nothing by making the big end pay for it, and those who think that fostering a good business environment means full employment and less on the dole queues. Paying off union bigwigs and faceless men is what we expect from the people you call liberals and we call socialist or the Labor Party. Such people think the answer lies in finding a way to tax everyone to implement their agenda and then we have those who think that to befriend the masses you lower tax and make sure programs are delivered so business prospers.

Feudalism is a feature of US republican politics which we don't see here, you have tried to export your brand of feudalism to the world but it just doesn't take

Perhaps all those people whose food stamps have been cut can just pick from Michelle's garden?

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/ZZ4BE40B9F.jpg

The National Education Association, which brought in $355,334,165 in dues and fees last year (http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2010/08/10/the-nea-raked-in-355-million-from-teachers-last-year/). They spent $50 million on lobbying, more than they spent on representation, but according to Mimi, the GOP was "demeaning teachers" for opposing special interest bailouts.

This is the Alinsky model at work. Bob Chanin, the NEA's top lawyer gave us this bit of insight last year:


“Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power.

“And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year, because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them, the unions that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees. …

“This is not to say that the concern of NEA and its affiliates with closing achievement gaps, reducing dropout rates, improving teacher quality and the like are unimportant or inappropriate. To the contrary. These are the goals that guide the work we do. But they need not and must not be achieved at the expense of due process, employee rights and collective bargaining. That simply is too high a price to pay.”

They're not special interests, they're teachers. They do it for the children. Haven't I heard that before?

NJ teacher congratulates herself on doing it for the love of teaching while whining about her $86k salary and benefits:

aw0aBkt8CPA

Hello:

I wonder why you don't mention cops jobs. They were saved too. I know why. You like dumb people and you like to put 'em in jail.

You must be bored. You wanted programs to PAY for themselves?? That means CUTS will take place. Ordinarily, you wingers LOVE cuts, and this program used to be one of your fav's to cut. Come on righty's - this is FREE FOOD we're talking about here. If you think people are "spoiled", like Sharron Angle says, because they collect unemployment INSURANCE, which they PAID for, certainly you believe, don't you, that if you GIVE people FREE food, they won't try to feed themselves? They'll just stay home and wait till you're giving 'em MORE free food. Isn't that a CORE Republican NEW idea, these days? It ABSOLUTELY is! Who are you trying to fool?

Is this because Pelosi did it? It IS, isn't it?? Dudes.

excon

I thought it was pretty simple ex, Democrats are hypocrites interested only in consolidating power. I on the other hand, think the children and the hungry come first.

Ex ;So I guess you aren't concerned about cuts in the food stamp program (which despite your rant I never opposed ) .
You would rather the money go to pay for bloated public service employee salaries ,pensions (and yes in many cases that includes police and fire dept ) ,and bailout money directly to blue states that can't control their ever expanding expenditures.
Political leadership was Rudy G taking on the police and fire depts when cuts were needed . Political leadership is Chris Christe taking on the teacher's unions when they refuse to make modest concessions to save their own jobs.

I'm willing to bet that Madame Mimi in the lame duck session (after all the heat is off from the election) restores the funds to the food stamp program and ,just adds it to the red ink.
What you don't get is that the objection here is not to the food stamp program . The objection is to the sucking up to the unions with our tax dollars. They did not have to do anything. But when the unions call... the Dems comply.

By the way, they're now debating cutting food stamps again (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/114271-dems-consider-more-food-stamp-cuts-to-fund-child-nutrition-bill#thecomments-form-message) to pay for Michelle's anti-obesity program. This is actually brilliant, cut their food aid and perhaps they won't be so fat. Put them to work in her garden and they get exercise, too.

The Dems don't get Paygo yet.There are 2 ways they can tackle it. The trimming of unnecessary expenditures is one way (which food stamps don't necessarily apply) .The other way is to suspend new spending initiatives. They are running into the problem of their own making because they just can't help themselves when it comes to new ways to spend tax dollars.
When they massively increase taxes they will say... "hey ! we trimmed the budget so thin that we couldn't pay for food stamps " . Well perhaps if there weren't roads being paved that didn't need paving ,there would be the funds available.

Well perhaps if there weren't roads being paved that didn't need paving ,there would be the funds available.

But what about all those jobs "saved or created" at what, $8 million per job?