And this story isn't about pork. It's about thanking the government for BAILOUT of the pork industry. BAILOUTs which she pretends to oppose on the campaign trail but privately thanks the Sec of AG for. It's about being a hypocrite. Or if you prefer a typical politician willing to say anything to get elected and willing to do anything to stay elected.
As far as Palin’s earmarks. She cut earmarks by 86% during her time as Gov. She didn't talk about cutting earmarks and then go and request more and more. like Bachmann.
Fac eit Bachmann is not who she pretends to be. she decoded to ride the Tea party to power while signing their song and then voting against their interests when it suits her. like the patriot act.
But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.[Emphasis: mine]Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.
The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.
Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.
Excerpted from: The Law, Fredric Bastiat (1801-1850)
From the HuffPO (anticonservative rag):
At the time, the pork industry was facing a two-pronged calamity: fallout from the H1N1 influenza crisis and the ripple effects of the recession. Pork producers had lost nearly $4.6 billion in equity since 2007 and Vilsack, sensing greater market doom, had injected funds into the industry at least four times since that spring. In March 2009, the USDA purchased $25 million in pork, in April it made a $50 million purchase and in July it bought 775,000 pounds of ham, according to reports. In September, just one month before receiving Bachmann's letter, Vilsack had signed off on $30 million in additional federal purchases of pork.
"This isn't a subsidy," said Dave Warner, Director of Communications at the National Pork Producers Council. "This is the federal government getting the food they need for food assistance programs and getting it at a good price."
As Warner notes, the government helps feed significant swaths of the U.S. population, from low-income students to the elderly, military personnel and prisoners. When Vilsack purchased more pork, it came from within pre-existing Department of Agriculture budget allocations. It also saved jobs.
But it wasn't the conservative way of doing things. Indeed, even before Bachmann wrote her letter, Fox News' Sean Hannity had penned a blog post blasting the government for "literally" buying pork. Among the list of items he found objectionable: "$16.7 million to Minnesota for 'canned pork'" -- money that came from Vilsack's purchase of 775,000 pounds of ham.
So, apparently, Minnesota, got a whopping 16.7 million for their pork producers when the pork industry was at a crisis. That doesnt seem to me to rise to the level of scandalous pork barrel spending. The federal government got FOOD out the deal....not a piece of artwork...or the study of some endangered animal.
So, even though Palin cut earmark pork 86%, she still got 450+ million in pork from the Feds. So, Bachmanns 16 million in food sales to the feds PALES in comparison. As far as her farm goes...she may post earnings from the farm because she inherited it. She doesnt run the farm. Also, the 250k the farm received was over 11 years. Clearly covering a time when her family didnt own the farm.