UPI/Kevin Dietsch
WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley is leading a group of senators asking U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack about the department’s discussion of furloughing meat inspectors due to the sequestration.
“Furloughing meat inspectors may shut down meat and poultry facilities and harm workers, farmers, and consumers. I find it hard to believe that reductions can’t be made elsewhere in the department that don’t impact health and safety. If the department believes it needs to go to these drastic measures, the public ought to know if other areas within the department are seeing the same kinds of cost-saving measures as something as important as meat inspectors,” Grassley said.
The senators specifically ask for the clarification and the legal rationale for the claim that meat inspectors can be furloughed. In addition, the senators want to know how the department is handling budget cuts for travel, conferences and operating expenses.
“The President has done little to help prevent the cuts he suggested in the first place. Not to mention that he campaigned last fall on the fact that they ‘will not happen.’ His campaign style approach to averting the sequestration is unfortunate,” Grassley added. “It’s time for the President to join Congress to focus on the spending discipline needed to restore confidence in the economy.”
The letter was signed by Grassley and Senators Thad Cochran, Deb Fisher, Mike Johanns, Pat Roberts, John Boozman, Saxby Chambliss, John Hoeven and Jerry Moran.
Here is a copy of the text of the letter:
February 26, 2013
Secretary Tom Vilsack
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, D.C. 20250
Dear Secretary Vilsack:
You have recently discussed with farm groups and media outlets the impact that sequestration, as mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011, will have on the Department of Agriculture (USDA). In particular, you have mentioned on numerous occasions the likely furlough of meat and poultry product inspectors. Of course, USDA is required to perform these inspections under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products Inspections Act (PPIA). The health, safety, affordability, and availability of meat and poultry products are of the utmost importance for all Americans. Without inspectors, meat and poultry product production facilities will be shut down, and products will stop flowing to grocery store shelves.
Farmers, meat processors, poultry product processors, and consumers will all be severely hurt if USDA fails to have inspectors on the ground performing their required duties in accordance with FMIA and PPIA. The comments you have made in the press, to farm groups, and at the recent USDA Outlook Forum, suggest you view there is a rigid legal duty to furlough all employees at USDA without concern for USDA’s statutory duties, or for the health and safety of consumers. Since that is apparently your view, please respond to the following questions and requests for further information:
1) What is USDA doing to reduce spending in the areas of travel, seminars, conferences, and operating expenses in light of sequestration? Please provide an accounting of the savings USDA expects to save from these areas.
2) Please provide any written legal opinions you have been provided by USDA attorneys, the White House, or the Office of Management and Budget, indicating you have the ability to disregard the requirements under FMIA and PPIA and furlough inspectors.
3) Please provide your plan for furloughs in the office of the USDA Secretary due to the requirements of the Budget Control Act of 2011.
4) In a letter you sent in mid-February to the American Meat Institute, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Pork Producers Council, National Chicken Council, and the National Turkey Federation, you stated, “[W]ere sequestration to become reality, it simply would not be possible for FSIS to achieve the requisite level of savings by furloughing non-front line staff alone.” Please explain this assertion. In addition, please explain why USDA cannot use furloughs in other mission areas in order to keep FSIS inspectors on the job. If you have received written legal opinions pertaining to sparing FSIS inspectors and furloughing other USDA employees instead, please provide a copy.
We are confident you have the ability to implement sequestration at USDA without jeopardizing the ability of Americans to feed their families and seriously hurting U.S. farmers, meat and poultry production facilities, and workers in those facilities. We look forward to receiving a response to the above questions and information requests. Due to the time sensitivity of this matter, we would appreciate receiving your response by no later than March 4, 2013.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/07/poor_households_getting_168_in_welfare_per_day_from_taxpayers
It gives CRS as the data supplier, once again non partison gov. think tank. With time it can be found on CRS website. If it were a Dem then the truth would spill from the article but seeing its a Republican its tainted. Debate all you want on the author but lets stay with the subject and prove me wrong.
Happy Guy LVS is right. I found it on Town Hall.com right away. Took me two seconds. You could find it to but your to afraid to actually find the truth. One thing LVS left out is that administative costs are included meaning after the bureacracy of government how much actually reaches them.. The fact is giving money away to (some) people for extended periods of time leads to a way of life. Welfare should act like a ladder to a better life not a couch.
TOWN HALL???? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Why don’t I quote some “facts” from DEMS R US??
You realize that these “numbers” were calculated by REPUB senator Jeff Sessions’ staff, right? They used their giant brains to come up with these numbers from the CRS, the Census Bureau and the “Oxford Handbook of State and Local Government Finance”…. and themselves…
OMG i can’t seem to find the article. I did see who the have as contributing writers. Looks to me like they and Faux News us the same reporters. I would still be glad to read it. Post a like
What do you guys think CRS is? Congressional Research Service. Its basically a think tank for congress. Nonpartison its part of the government not the media. Hey but its ok to be ill informed and attack instead of debate because that is what you guys do right. Faux news, teabaggers, bigots, racists. You guys use em all just to deflect issues so the debate is halted and subject changed.
Did anyone here what POTUS said on sequestration yesterday? Apparently the sky will not fall on Saturday… Research boys research Ill test ya tomorrow.
Did you also notice the OTHER sources, OMG?
I’ve pointed out the hypocrisy of this “study” with irrefutable data.
I’d like to know how that equates deflection.
I have looked on Town Hall.com 4 times and still haven’t found the article in question. I am beginning to think it doesn’t exist because if there was a reliable article about this either you or LVS would supply a link. But hay if you and LVS says it’s true it must be because you guys are never wrong…are you?
Good for you Chuck ! As we say in worth county keep the subsides coming and your other hand on the one arm bandit !
Can you blame Chuck asking Tom about how he spends money? Look where he spend 22500$
The Environmental Protection Agency spent nearly $40,000 on a portrait of Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, while a painting of Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley will cost $41,200, according to federal purchasing records. The price tag for a 3-by-4-foot oil portrait of Agriculture Department Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack: $22,500.
All told, the government has paid out at least $180,000 for official portraits since last year, according to a review by The Washington Times of spending records at federal agencies and military offices across government.
JB like a true republican or Faux News follower you tell only 1/2 the story. You make this sound as if it this has only happened under the Obama administration. You seem to forgot to mention that this has been going on pretty much forever. I will agree with you that it is a waste of money for Pres Obama’s cabinet members to do their portrait’s just as it was for Pres. Bush’s, Pres. Clinton’s, Pres. G H Bush, and so on and so on cabinet member’s.
@happy guy-Hey guy I have some info for you. It is a little off topic. According to the Senate Budget Committee in fiscal 2011, eleven states had more people on welfare than they do working. They are Ca., Nm.,Ms., Al., Sc., Ill., Ky., Oh., Ny., Me., The average U.S. household below the poverty line received $168.00 p/ day in government support and the median household income in the U.S. averages $137.13 p/day. Welfare now pays more than working for a living. Does this surprise you?
Seriously, JB? That’s the best you’ve got?
LVS…sorry I’ve been busy today. Did sometime helping out the hungry. Before I will comment on it I would like to see a link to where you are getting your info about welfare vs work. I have read through the posts here I missed today and I am wondering why you don’t consider corporate subsidies welfare? I agree about closing tax loopholes. Why is the GOP against them? Could it be because of the impact it will have on their rich friends?
Poor Chuckie. Playing games with lives but hates it when other people do it.
How about this, old man: Encourage the fools in the house to pass this so you don’t have to feign shock and horror.
@sicka-I am not sure the fools in the house are the problem. I think it might be the president and the idiots in the senate.
Sorry. This one rests squarely on their shoulders – as usual. It’s the repubs – again – who are refusing to negotiate. Refusing. They will only consider their way or nothing.
The dems have given them a proposal. Instead of negotiating like grown ups, the repubs are just refusing to act – AGAIN.
@sicka-what proposal and when. I have heard nothing about the Dems putting out anything except the sky is falling. I just watched Harry Reid this morning and he said they were working on it.
What I don’t understand is that you say this is soley the republicans fault yet obama isn’t in washington trying to get everybody to the table instead he is traveling all over, which costs money, complaining that the republicans won’t talk but he isn’t even trying. They finally did say everybody will get together on the 1st but isn’t that too late? I know stupid that you have this deep seated hatred for republicans which I wonder if maybe 1 dropped you as a child. I don’t like what democrats stand for but I have some very close friends that are democrats and we get along.
@maybe-it is just amazing that they do not want to talk about the amount of welfare in the country. And the good part is the Democratic Senate were the ones who did the report.
LVS: The Deal Sets the Stage for Balanced Deficit Reduction, Consistent with the President’s Values: The deal is designed to achieve balanced deficit reduction, consistent with the values the President articulated in his April Fiscal Framework. The discretionary savings are spread between both domestic and defense spending. And the President will demand that the Committee pursue a balanced deficit reduction package, where any entitlement reforms are coupled with revenue-raising tax reform that asks for the most fortunate Americans to sacrifice.
Dems want capital gains taxes to be included in this, per the original agreement.
Repubs, in complete defiance of the deal from 2011, are refusing to include any increases in taxes.
In other words, it’s the repubs AGAIN.
Maybe, if all you have is childish insults, don’t talk to me.
LVS, this is a BIPARTISAN deal. “Welfare” is a relative term. Your definition is probably different than mine. I think capital gains taxes at 0% is welfare. I think BILLIONS in oil subsidies is welfare.
But most importantly, this deal was hammered out by BOTH parties, and BOTH parties excluded Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare benefits, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement.
It pays to know more than how to insult someone.
@sicka-thank you for your response, but where did I try to insult you? And I think you are somewhat trying to change the subject here. The report was on low income welfare vs. the average working family and had nothing to do with oil or capital gains and ifyou want to consider that is welfare then that is up to you. But in my opinion it’s not the same thing at all. Now the BALANCE DEAl you talk about includes new taxes. According to the Republicans there will be no more taxes. My personal opinion is, CLOSE the damn loopholes. I have stated before that one of the dumbest things I have ever seen was to create a tax and then make a loophole so you don’t have to pay it. Again, it was not my intent to insult you at all and I was trying very hard not to call you any name. I am trying not to call anyone names except for a couple of people who really pss me off. I for one am glad you are back. I learn from your post.
First of all stupd you actually sound like you know what you are talking about, if it wasn’t for the hard core hatred I see in your words I would believe you. Secondly if you are so sure that both parties are responsible then why is obama blaming only the republicans? Not to mention letting thousands of hardened criminals loose just to proove a point is beyond comprehention.
@stupd, please show me where I insulted you. You keep crying about that but I have no idea what you are talking about. Is it when I asked where the hatred comes from?
LVS, I wasn’t referring to you. I was talking to Maybe and his “somebody dropped you on your head” comment. He also think it’s necessary to badger me about my hatred for repubs.
You and I just talked about this the other day, LVS. We both miss the old REAL repubs, and I have a lot more to do than hate anybody.
Lastly, I’m confused about what report you’re talking about? I was referring to the sequestration deal.
@stupd, sorry if you took it wrong but if you reread my statement all I asked was if someone dropped you, I never said anything about your head. Our dog we got from an indian reservation in arizona and he was dropped many times so he used to have this hatred for men, he has mellowed alot in his old age but if any men would come around he would go crazy. Thats all I meant, not that you had a mental problem.
@sicka-I am glad you didn’t think I was trying to insult you and yes, you are correct in that I am somewhat up set with the Republicans myself as it seems like they are willing to let the whole country go to pieces to protect the very rich. They are not the party I used to know. I was referring to the report on welfare that I kind of addressed to happy guy to see if he could refute it. I guess I misunderstood you.
maybe 1000’s of hardened criminals aren’t being released. That is unless you are calling speeders and red light runners hardened criminals. You need to check your facts on that one…nice try though
@happy, at least try to look things up before condeming me. I googled “thousands of illeigals freed and it showed me over a dozen articles from different sites. You remember obamas new law that the only way they can detain illeigal alliens is if they have a criminal history. All these web sites report DHS releasing hundreds if not thousands all over california and arizona. Look it up yourself unless you enjoy looking the fool.
maybe I know that many ICE detainees are being released. My point was that they are not releasing hardened criminals. The ones being released are illegal imigrants that have been caught in traffic stops and the like. These are not rapists, murderers, or violent criminals. I’m sorry that you seem to have a time understanding my posts.
“Priority for detention remains on serious criminal offenders and other individuals who pose a significant threat to public safety.” This means the bad guys are still being detained.
Now the quote from you to me seems to apply to you:
“Look it up yourself unless you enjoy looking the fool.”
Ok now the ball is in my court. Last year obama signed an executive order stating that only those illeigals that have a felony record can be detained, those are the ones that are being released. Remember when arizona was fighting this and passed their own law and the government was suing arizona? Now I know what you are going to say about this article, rush limbaugh calling for his impeachment, thats not what I am trying to get across on this, it is the facts about the illeigals itself that I am getting across here.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/obamas-release-of-illegals-impeachable-offense/
Oh, Maybe. These people were the non-violent illegals awaiting sentencing. The bad guys are NOT being released. These are people who have been picked up in factory raids, traffic stops, etc. They will all have ankle bracelets or be sent to other low security places.
Prison officials are hailing this as a smart move, since it cost 164 bucks a day to keep them in jails, and only 14 bucks using alternative methods.
I’d rather see illegal aliens out and about than one of the investment bankers who helped bring this economic mess about.
sickastupd, maybe won’t believe us unless somebody on Faux News says it’s true. I am finding out that it is useless to try to lead him to the truth. He is very good at picking and choosing bits and piece’s of the truth to make his arguements….much like Faux news
It wouldn’t be an Obama government without any scare tactics.
Got that right Buzz – Vilsack is executing political grandstanding trying to scare the public. Obama now releasing illegals in California as part of the same strategy.
This is what passes for governance these days – thanks to the Chicago political machine.