Tag: Government

Snapping The Junk

Food & Drink, Gummint, Subsidies

A whole bunch of people are getting their knickers in a knot about this little development, whereby Pore Folks who qualify for food assistance (SNAP) will in future not be allowed to buy candy and such with these handouts — and are suing the Fed to be allowed to do so.

Recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on Wednesday, challenging its food restriction waivers that reduce the types of foods that can be purchased with benefits.

Represented by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice (NCLEJ), a nonprofit focused on advancing justice for low-income families, five SNAP recipients from Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia sued the USDA for implementing its waiver restriction pilot projects.

The restriction waivers bar SNAP recipients from using their benefits on junk foods, sodas, energy drinks or other “non-nutritious items.” The USDA has approved 22 restriction waivers so far, with the types of barred foods varying across states.

I have two competing thoughts about this.  On a point of principle, if money is being given to you (note:  given) then the donor has every right to determine how you spend it.

On the other hand, however, is the thought that the fucking government has no business telling people what and what not to eat and drink, regardless of donor status.

“Oooooh but they’re spending money on unhealthy foods!”

So fucking what?  They’re adults, and should be treated as such, not as children guided in their food choices by Mother Government.

Just remember, however, that every SNAP dollar spent on Red Bull eventually ends up here:

Not that I care, one way or the other.

Not Much For The Grunts

Budgets, Military

I read this post at Insty’s place, wherein some people are complaining that the Pentagon is spending money on things like steak, ice cream, donuts and… lobster tails?  Go ahead and read it, because there are some telling points made.

However.

I have no way of checking on this, let alone quantifying it, but I think I’d sell my AK-47 if much (or any) lobster was being served in the enlisted men’s mess halls around the world.  In other words, I’m betting that those pricey lobster tails are being consumed by generals, military contractors and other REMFs, and not by the troops on the ground or at the sharp end.

Just so we’re all clear on my position on this:  I want the boys doing the hard work to eat whatever they want and whatever we can get to them. If that includes steak, ice cream, donuts or fucking lobster tails, then so be it.  But my concern for the diets of the aforementioned brass, leeches and REMFs drops off a cliff when it comes to said items.

To paraphrase some French* queen, let them eat Spam.

*I know, Marie Antoinette was Austrian.  Shuddup.

Firing The Deadwood

Bureaucracy

This isn’t about campfires, oh no.  This is so much more satisfying than a roaring fire on a cold winter’s night:

Approximately 50,000 federal workers in “policy-influencing” positions will lose specific protections against firings and become more at-will employees in the next month, per a new Trump administration rule announced Thursday.

The new rule, published by the Office of Personnel Management, will move senior career civil servants in “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating” positions into the Schedule Policy/Career category, formerly known as Schedule F.

Going forward, federal workers in those roles will lose their ability to appeal firings, suspensions or disciplinary action to an independent board.

Administration officials can dismiss those employees if they engage in “misconduct, poor performance or obstruct the democratic process by intentionally subverting Presidential directives.”

I think I speak for all my Readers when I say that while 50,000 is a nice round number, I’m thinking that 200,000 is a much nicer, rounder number.  But I’m open to other, more ambitious suggestions.

Of course, the response has been predictable:

The American Federation of Government Employees, the largest union representing non-postal federal workers, said in a statement that the rule would “chill protected speech” and “weaken enforceable protections against retaliation.”

“This rule is a direct assault on a professional, nonpartisan, merit-based civil service and the government services the American people rely on every day,” AFGE President Everett Kelley said.

Two issues jump off the page.

Firstly, let’s just suggest that right off the bat, the very idea of a government-employee union is an abomination.  It’s time the AFGE was abolished.

Secondly, if the current crop of bureaucrats had actually behaved like a “professional, nonpartisan, merit-based civil service” over the past, oh, eighty years then this action wouldn’t have been necessary.  But they haven’t, so here we are.

The bitter joke is that the civil service has always been the structure whereby Democrat policy has been implemented regardless of which party is in the White House.  This new Executive Order from DJT is simply rectifying that attitude, and it’s about damn time, too.

Question, Answered

Gummint, Legal Stuff

Seen at Insty, a thought from Randy Barnett concerning this issue:

Argument: Allowing the Prez to remove administrative officials will transfer an enormous amount of power to the Prez.

Question: Transfer from whom? Who currently has all that power?

One more question:  And where in the Constitution does it grant those executive powers outside the Presidency?

Ipse dixit.

Corollary thought:  if Trump wanted to make a serious difference to the Judiciary, he’d nominate Randy Barnett to the Supreme Court when one of the current super-lawyers retires or croaks.

Scum & Villains

Rights, Taxes and Theft

Given the state concerned, one has to wonder what John and Sam Adams (not to mention John Hancock) would have thought of this piece of theft and anti-Constitutional skulduggery (brought to my attention by Reader Mike L., who is inexplicably resident* in said state):

A Beacon Hill committee met on Monday to discuss a proposed excise tax on firearms and ammunition, aimed at enhancing public safety in Massachusetts.

The proposed bill, introduced by western Massachusetts Representative Mindy Domb, seeks to increase the excise tax on firearms and ammunition, with the revenue directed to a Public Health and Safety Fund. This fund would support community-based research, public health interventions, and services for gun violence survivors and victims’ families.

“Tragic gun deaths and catastrophic gun injuries cost the great state of Massachusetts an astounding 3.5 billion dollars each year, of which 85.4 million dollars is paid by taxpayers,” said a testifier, Matthew Nugent, during the hearing.

The proposed excise tax is set at 4.75% of the wholesale value of each firearm and individual round of ammunition. If implemented, Massachusetts would join states like California and Colorado in using gun tax revenue for violence prevention and support services.

Now I’m not proposing — what does the Left call it?  oh yeah — direct action (a.k.a. violence) should be brought to bear against the people who are supporting this un-Constitutional and illegal theft.

All I’m saying is that Sam Adams (he — and  brother  cousin John both — of Sons of Liberty fame) would by now be firing up the tar barrels and plucking a few geese, and yea even preparing a few firebrands to be tossed into some houses.  Because if they were prepared to go all fire, tar & feathers on people over a tax on paper, imagine how they’d feel about a tax on guns.

But this is modern-day Massachusetts, not the pre-Revolutionary state where the whole thing started over taxes.

More’s the pity.

*Mike, my longtime Friend & Reader:  GTFO, willya?