Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I'm thrilled that the President didn't veto the spending bill (updated) [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)15. Again,
"Monsanto and the Republicans are thrilled also, Democrats and consumers not so much."
...Congress could have stopped this.
While there are no definite fingerprints for whoever is responsible for the rider, the earmark was allowed under the direction of Senator Barbara Mikulski, the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee (D-MD). Congress has held no hearings on this controversial biotech rider and many Democrats in the Committee were unaware of its presence in the CR. Additionally, Mikulski and the Senate Appropriations Committee failed to bring this rider in front of the Agriculture or Judiciary Committees, disregarding their expertise and jurisdiction and in blatant violation of common practice.
In this hidden backroom deal, Senator Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental, and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto, said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Senator Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.
In this hidden backroom deal, Senator Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental, and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto, said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Senator Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022576338
It's utterly ridiculous to think that the President was going to veto a spending bill over this. Ludicrous.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
97 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I'm thrilled that the President didn't veto the spending bill (updated) [View all]
ProSense
Mar 2013
OP
Of course if you stop paying ransoma out, blackmail doesn't work. However, since
sabrina 1
Mar 2013
#3
Thankfully, the President is more pragmatic than his armchair critics. K&R. nt
Comrade_McKenzie
Mar 2013
#5
Yes, and that is why we keep losing. I admire the Republicans and their Corporate
sabrina 1
Mar 2013
#13
No, not at all. I admire their ability to get what they want, not THEM. Because
sabrina 1
Mar 2013
#62
Only those oblivious to the disasterous effects of the sequestering action could advocate shutting
grantcart
Mar 2013
#11
Right. There isn't a single politically savvy person that would have advised a veto
onenote
Mar 2013
#28
"like the pigs in animal farm who shouted up ever 'accomplishment' of napoleon"
ProSense
Mar 2013
#76
By law, aren't you supposed to have one of those "I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message"
Marr
Mar 2013
#39
I don't believe it is possible to top your sadly desperate, and inappropriate adulation.
Egalitarian Thug
Mar 2013
#59
The fact that you are seemingly compelled to reply again and again to any and every comment
Egalitarian Thug
Mar 2013
#69