PDA

View Full Version : Pompous Reps- this is what 'represents' us




pinkmandy
03-31-2009, 06:47 PM
My friend in Idaho wrote a letter to her Congressman urging him to support better labeling of foods, including and especially gmo foods. His response:


Dear Kristina:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the labeling of agricultural products. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

Lately it has become popular for consumers to favor products that purport to be “organic” or “all natural”. While I believe that consumers should be free to make their own choices as to the products they purchase, I recognize that these popular product varieties can potentially suggest that regular food products are substandard or unhealthy.

This is really part of a larger debate ongoing in Congress regarding more extensive labeling of agricultural products. This debate raises concerns for me. For example, I am concerned that mandatory labeling of any genetically modified foods or foods treated with pesticides may cause consumers who know little about the issue to assume that any information included on a label would constitute a hazard warning. As a result, these consumers might avoid them based on a judgment of implied risk. To make such labeling truthful and not misleading, all commodities would need to be segregated and tested, and the label would not have room to impart information that could not be distributed in other ways.

The technology employed by food producers today is essential to maximizing efficiency in a highly competitive world market. To stay in business, American farmers must always increase their efficiency. With the help of agricultural research, total farm output in America has increased by nearly two-and-a-half times of what it was in 1950. This is phenomenal, and I am reluctant to support measures that could potentially hamper this progress by discouraging the consumption of foods produced with this technology.

Once again, thank you for taking time to contact me with your concerns. The thoughts and opinions of Idahoans are important to me as your Representative in the United States Congress. I also encourage you to visit my website at www.house.gov/simpson to sign up for my weekly e-newsletter and to read more about my views on a variety of issues.

Sincerely,

S Mike Simpson

Member of Congress

dr. hfn
03-31-2009, 07:17 PM
"read more about my views on a variety of issues." What an ASS! His views don't matter, his constituent's views matter more!

Kotin
03-31-2009, 07:17 PM
reallly??!!


we cant have people know what their eating and therefore make a conscious choice to stop..


god damnit.

surf
03-31-2009, 07:24 PM
labeling of foods should not be a government program - and the congressman is right in suggesting that such labels would add to the costs of these foods. c'mon guys, we are supposed to want the government out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms, but we want the government in our refrigerators?

if there is trully an economic need for better labeling of foods - it should come from the private sector.

it's like the New York law that is supposed to have all food sold in restaurants list their calorie content... if you don't know that a Big Mac has more calories than a regular hamburger, i shouldn't have to pay to educate you on this.

edit: and what the hell are GMO foods?

Elle
03-31-2009, 07:25 PM
This would be my response to this asshat

Dear Mr. Simpson,

I think that you seem to be forgetting that you are supposed to be working for your constituents. I am not the only constituent you have that feels the consumer has the right to know what they are putting into their bodies.

Since you feel it is okay for big business to worry more about lining their pockets than provide healthy food for consumers I am going to make it my mission to see that you are not re-elected. I will do this by visiting every garden club, health food store, PTA meeting so on and so forth from now until election time. I will seek out like minded constituents to help me in my effort.

Kotin
03-31-2009, 07:30 PM
edit: and what the hell are GMO foods?

genetically modified food.

NYgs23
03-31-2009, 09:12 PM
So where does the Constitution give Congress the authority to put warning labels on food?

idiom
04-01-2009, 01:05 AM
Guys. Here in 'unfree' 'socialist' New Zealand we have groups like BioGro (http://www.biogro.co.nz). They label food for a fee and are often non-profit.

So here you know if your food is Genetically Engineered, or grown from clones or if your eggs come from battery Hens or not etc.

Stop asking the government to solve it all for you.

The FDA works in the interests of the largest of the corporations who have no interest in maintaining food standards, just sales volumes.

pinkmandy
04-01-2009, 07:47 AM
So where does the Constitution give Congress the authority to put warning labels on food?

The same place it gives them the authority to create a USDA and FDA to push this stuff on the people. When 90% of soy in this country is genetically modified, because the FDA said it's all safe yet we don't know what we're eating, when the head of the USDA is a Monsanto lackey...

Do I like the idea of the govt getting involved in labels and such? No. But I also don't like these agencies w/their revolving doors of corporate, gmo guys creating their own safety standards and laws.

idiom
04-01-2009, 01:24 PM
The same place it gives them the authority to create a USDA and FDA to push this stuff on the people. When 90% of soy in this country is genetically modified, because the FDA said it's all safe yet we don't know what we're eating, when the head of the USDA is a Monsanto lackey...

Do I like the idea of the govt getting involved in labels and such? No. But I also don't like these agencies w/their revolving doors of corporate, gmo guys creating their own safety standards and laws.

Get your certifications from crazy hippy non-profit groups. They freak out over the tiniest infractions to food saftey.

However, this requires you to *not buy* stuff that isn't independently certified.

Yes. That means you have to care.

klamath
04-01-2009, 01:45 PM
It isn't up to the federal government to force farms to put labels on. What part of getting the Federal government out of our lives are you missing? Just because they created the FDA against the constitution doesn't make it right to add more federal regulation even if it is your pet idea. As many of you will protest, hard drugs and MJ are a lot more harmful to human health than GMO's but we don't need to Federal government involved in trying to protect us from hard drugs and MJ either.

NYgs23
04-01-2009, 02:46 PM
The same place it gives them the authority to create a USDA and FDA to push this stuff on the people.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Pepsi
04-01-2009, 03:02 PM
Here is a few messages I got back from him, he is my Congressman also. Some are from the 110'th Congress.


Thank you for contacting me regarding global warming. I share many of your concerns, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

Many scientists agree that the Earth’s climate is changing, having warmed by 1.1 to 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Although natural forces such as solar irradiance and volcanoes contribute to variability of the Earth’s temperature, scientists cannot explain the climate changes of the past few decades without including the effects of elevated greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from the use of fossil fuels.

While there are disagreements as to the magnitude of man’s influence on the Earth’s increasing temperature, there is a consensus among policy makers that we must develop clean, alternative fuels in order to curb the amount of greenhouse gas emitted into the atmosphere by fossil fuels.

You may be interested to know about some of my efforts on behalf of renewable energy. I am a member of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, a group of congressional members that seek to bring together industry representatives, the Administration and Congressional interests to discuss and promote the use, research and development of renewable energy and energy efficiency.

I have been proud to support ongoing research and development activities at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) concerning alternative energy. Because of the INL’s history in nuclear energy, many people do not realize the tremendous amount of research on renewable and alternative energy being conducted at the site nor are they aware of the promise that research holds. I will continue to support the funding requirements of these important research and development projects and try to attract new initiatives at the INL that expand this important work.

Most recently I voted in favor of H.R. 547, the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act, which will implement a research and development program to help make clean burning, renewable energy, such as bio-diesel and ethanol, more compatible with existing fuel storage and delivery equipment. H.R. 547 passed the House of Representatives on February 8, 2007.

While these efforts are a step in the right direction, I do not believe there is a simple answer to this complex problem. Any approach to curb the emission of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere must be comprehensive in nature, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as Congress addresses this important issue.

I want you to know that I share your concern for the environment, and I appreciate you for taking time to contact me with your concerns. The thoughts and opinions of Idahoans are important to me as your Representative in the United States Congress. I also encourage you to visit my website at www.house.gov/simpson to sign up for my weekly e-newsletter and to read more about my views on a variety of issues.

Sincerely,
S
Mike Simpson
Member of Congress


Thank you for contacting me regarding your opposition to the climate change legislation under consideration by the U.S. Senate. I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to respond.

S. 3036, the America’s Climate Security Act of 2007, was introduced by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA). S. 3036 would create a cap-and-trade system to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. Congress has never mandated a reduction in greenhouse gases; instead, the U.S. rejected the international Kyoto Protocol and has depended on voluntary emission reduction programs. There is concern that, despite these programs, U.S. emissions have continued to grow since the 1990s.

The idea behind the type of cap-and-trade system proposed in S. 3036 is to reduce emissions through a market-like system, rather than simply mandating that every emitter reduce emissions by a certain percentage or amount to reach a specific goal. The program sets a goal, or cap, on the amount of greenhouse gases that can be produced industry-wide. Over time, this cap would be lowered to further reduce emissions. Emitters would be issued a limited number of “permits” to produce emissions in line with reduction goals, and entities that would have difficulty meeting the emissions goal or would only be able to do so at high cost could purchase permits from entities that can more easily reduce their emissions.

While the EPA’s cap-and-trade system under the Clean Air Act has been very successful at reducing the sulfuric emissions that cause acid rain, I share the concerns of many Idahoans that many of the cap-and-trade systems implemented by European countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under Kyoto have been less successful. These programs are more complex and unwieldy than EPA’s small acid rain program. In addition, there is currently no system in place to monitor the emissions of greenhouse gases in the U.S., making it extremely challenging to put into place a successful cap-and-trade program in this country.

It is crucial that as Congress debates climate change legislation, we consider the possible consequences of our actions on the U.S. economy and on our ability to become energy independent. You can be confident that I will keep these issues in mind should the issue of climate change comes before me on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me about this issue. As your representative in Congress, it is important to me to know your thoughts and opinions about issues affecting our nation today. I also encourage you to visit my website, www.house.gov/simpson, to sign up for my e-newsletter and to read more about my views on a variety of issues.

Sincerely,
S
Mike Simpson
Member of Congress


Thank you for contacting me regarding your desire for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

I do not support efforts to impeach President Bush or Vice-President Dick Cheney. While we may disagree on the merits of this issue, I appreciate you taking the time to contact me with your concerns and I respect your opinion regarding this issue. I hope you will continue to offer your concerns and suggestions to me and I will keep your thoughts in mind as I work to represent you in the U.S. Congress.

Once again, thank you for taking time to write to me with your concerns. The thoughts and opinions of Idahoans are important to me as your Representative in the United States Congress. I also encourage you to visit my website at www.house.gov/simpson to sign up for my e-newsletter and to read more about my views on a variety of issues.

Sincerely,
S
Mike Simpson
Member of Congress


About the North American Union


Thank you for contacting me regarding a number of issues. I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to respond.

First, I want to address your comments regarding rumors about the creation of a “North American Union. There is currently no effort in Congress to create a North American Union or a common currency between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. This rumor may have started as a result of a report published in March 2005 by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) titled Building a North American Community, which recommends the establishment of a North American economic and security community by 2010. The CFR is an independent think tank and has no affiliation with the U.S. government.

Secondly, I want to respond to your comments regarding the so-called “NAFTA Super Highway.” Since the introduction of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), many have questioned the possibility of constructing a “super-highway” connecting Mexico, the United States, and Canada. In reality, this “super-highway” existed before the ratification of NAFTA in the form of I-35, which runs from the Mexican/Texas border to the Minnesota/Canadian border.

Much of the recent press involving the supposed construction of a “super-highway” has been centered on North America’s SuperCorridor Coalition, Inc. This group is a nongovernmental nonprofit agency which actively promotes an increase of trade between the members of NAFTA. This group’s efforts to maximize trade between the North American nations are purely private, and they are not affiliated with any government agency.

Lastly, I want to respond to your comments about the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. As you may be aware, on March 23, 2005 President Bush along with then-President Vicente Fox of Mexico and then-Prime Minister Martin of Canada announced the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) during a joint meeting in Waco, Texas. The SPP is a trilateral agreement between these countries to advance the common security and the common prosperity of the countries by expanding cooperation on immigration, border, and security policies. The SPP does not constitute an effort to create a North American Union or preempt U.S. law.

This improved cooperation could potentially be beneficial for the United States. For example, those involved hope this will allow the North American nations to quickly share vital information in times of epidemics or a security crisis. Also, this agreement promises to lead to shared energy research, which may allow the U.S. to be independent from foreign oil even sooner than expected. Finally, this agreement will hopefully lead to stronger and more secure borders as the North American nations collaborate to pursue drug smugglers, human traffickers, and other cross border criminals.

Recently, there have been some concerns expressed over whether this cooperative agreement could lead to a deterioration of American sovereignty. While I believe it is worth while to explore options of increased security cooperation with our North American neighbors, I will not support programs which would endanger American sovereignty. Rest assured, I will continue to carefully monitor this situation to ensure that America’s sovereignty and security is protected.

Once again, thank you for taking time to write to me with your concerns. The thoughts and opinions of Idahoans are important to me as your Representative in the United States Congress. I also encourage you to visit my website at www.house.gov/simpson to sign up for my weekly e-newsletter and to read more about my views on a variety of issues.

Sincerely,
S
Mike Simpson
Member of Congress



The message I get back most of the time about End the Fed


Thank you for contacting me regarding the Federal Reserve (Fed). I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to respond.

Founded in 1913, the Fed is responsible for conducting the nation’s monetary policy; supervising and regulating banking institutions and protecting the credit rights of consumers; maintaining the stability of the financial system; and providing certain financial services to the U.S. government, the public, financial institutions, and foreign official institutions.

The Chairmanship of the Fed, a position currently occupied by Ben Bernanke, is not an elected position, but is appointed by the President of United States. The Fed is designed to conduct monetary policy largely insulated from political pressure. President Bush first nominated Bernanke as Fed Chairman in 2006 to replace retiring Chairman Alan Greenspan. As Fed chief, he controls U.S. monetary policy by influencing short-term interest rates and, in turn, the cost of credit to American companies and consumers.

The Fed’s policies have played an important role in safeguarding the prosperity of our economy and making stability a manageable goal. In past years, the Fed’s risk-weighed monetary initiatives under former Chairman Greenspan have proven successful in pulling the American economy from the debts of a gargantuan inflation and keeping it active and growing. More recently, the Fed has taken a number of steps to reduce the impacts of economic slowdown.

While our views of the Fed’s policies may differ, I appreciate your effort to keep me informed of your thoughts. Please continue to keep me informed of other matters of interest to you.

Sincerely,
S
Mike Simpson
Member of Congress



Thank you for contacting me with your views regarding family planning policies and environmental legislation. I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to respond.

Currently there are no plans to implement a “one-child” policy in the United States, and I do not believe that limiting the number of children born into loving families would have a positive impact on America.

In your correspondence you also mentioned your concern for so called “green legislation.” While I believe we should be mindful of our impact on the environment, I believe this should be wisely balanced with our economic and security needs. I am concerned that much of the legislation pending in Congress to address environmental concerns, such as global warming, do not take this balanced approach. As such, while I believe these bills are well intentioned, I am hesitant to support them unless significant changes are made.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me about this issue. As your representative in Congress, it is important to me to know your thoughts and opinions about issues affecting our nation today. I also encourage you to visit my website, www.house.gov/simpson, to sign up for my e-newsletter and to read more about my views on a variety of issues.

Sincerely,
S
Mike Simpson
Member of Congress

pinkmandy
04-07-2009, 01:46 PM
It isn't up to the federal government to force farms to put labels on. What part of getting the Federal government out of our lives are you missing? Just because they created the FDA against the constitution doesn't make it right to add more federal regulation even if it is your pet idea. As many of you will protest, hard drugs and MJ are a lot more harmful to human health than GMO's but we don't need to Federal government involved in trying to protect us from hard drugs and MJ either.

In an 'ideal' world we wouldn't need any legislation to protect us- the market would take care of all this crap. However, when big agribusiness controls our legislators then we do have a major issue. There is zero reason, other than corporate interests, to hide this. The 'market' would take care of that for us IF it was ALLOWED to do so. It's not.

Right now the milk in my fridge has a label that says it is growth hormone free. That's great, their decision and I support it. BUT, the govt in all its wisdom required that the label have a disclaimer that says while the milk doesn't contain artificial growth hormones that doesn't mean artificial growth hormones are bad. Does that sound like free market to you? The FDA isn't going anywhere. Until it does we have a manipulated food supply and that's something that concerns me greatly. Until we find a way to dismantle the beloved FDA and closing the revolving door then we're stuck working with what we have. Free markets are important to me but until we have them then we need to fight for as much TRANSPARENCY as possible in all government entities. Letting them do whatever they want without protesting under the guise of "but markets should be free so we shouldn't do anything" accomplishes nothing. Forcing disclosure by putting the decisions to buy based on ingredients in the hands of the consumer takes away their power and gets us closer to free markets actually.

Wow, Pepsi- thanks for sharing that. This guy is a real piece of work. :eek: