Here’s Senator Chuck Grassley on the APA’s use of money for medical symposia and other activities….
"I have come to understand that money from the pharmaceutical industry can shape the practices of nonprofit organizations that purport to be independent in their viewpoints and actions," Mr. Grassley said.
That’s rich, coming from someone who said: "everything about ethanol is good, good, good."
I have come to understand that money from the soybean and biofuels industry can shape the practices of a Senator from Iowa that purports to be independent in his viewspoints and actions and who makes a career implying that money alone is the sole factor in forming judgments.
Or how about taking responsibility for creating and propping up this monster called ethanol?
“According to the Global Subsidies Initiative of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, ethanol tax credits and incentives will cost U.S. tax payers between $6.3 and 8.7 billion dollars annually between 2006 and 2012. Additionally, according to a study conducted by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University, the price of ethanol is being held artificially high by import tariffs imposed on foreign producers of ethanol. According to one of the authors, “Removing trade distortions would decrease the price for U.S. ethanol, while the world price would increase, as U.S. demand — and ethanol imports — would increase.” The drop in domestic ethanol prices could be as much as 18%.”
Now, I might be mistaken. But for a guy who is stressed about governmenet officials being too cozy with industry Grassley might want to start with himself. Here’s the record:
“Agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland Co. (ADM), the single largest beneficiary of a controversial federal ethanol tax subsidy, contributed more than $3 million in unregulated "soft money" to Republican and Democratic national party committees during the past 10 years, according to a study by Common Cause.
ADM gave direct political action committee contributions to congressional candidates: $700,170 to Democrats and $529,276 to Republicans from Jan. 1, 1987, to Dec, 31, 1997, according to the report.
The top recipient in the Senate was Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who got $34,500. The Senate Republican who received the most was Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), with $17,000.”
ADM has been a prime beneficiary of the federal tax credit on ethanol, which the refiner can apply to the tax it pays on corporate income. First implemented in 1978, the tax credit currently stands at 51 cents per gallon of ethanol sold. The Government Accounting Office estimates the subsidies to the ethanol industry from 1980-2000 at $11 billion. As the biggest ethanol producer in the US, ADM has received the largest portion of the government's generosity.
According to the Heritage Foundation:
Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) has extensive farm interests, as do some members of his immediate family. Listing his home address as Arlington, Virginia, Grassley received $225,041 in USDA subsidies for corn and soybeans and disaster assistance between 1995 and 2005.[8]
In New Hartford, Iowa, Senator Grassley's son Robin has received $653,833 in subsidy payments, mostly for corn and soybeans.[9] Patrick Grassley, the Senator's grandson, who also lives in New Hartford, received $5,964 in subsidies in 2005.[10]
In 2003 an energy bill authorized $1.75 billion over seven years in "transition" assistance to MTBE manufactures, including oil companies and refiners, as they scaled back production because of state bans on the product. The bill extended a Senate-proposed federal MTBE phaseout from four years to 10 years.
The largest GOP recipient of cash who in turn supported the measure?
Chuck Grassley.
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/news-article.aspx?storyid=10915
Over the years Grassley has received $1.5 million in direct campaign contributions from agribusinesss and energy interests, the largest source of cash next to health insurance companies which has been part of a quid pro quo for all sorts of goodies for Iowa.
Here’s the Washington Post’s Steven Pearlstein on Grassley who objected to parts of the housing bill that might be used to underwrite failing investment banks:
Well, isn’t this rich: Max Baucus of Montana and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Finance Committee are suddenly in a lather that taxpayer funds might be implicated in the Federal Reserve’s rescue of Bear Stearns.
Would that be the same Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley who have made careers out of protecting and enhancing the lavish system of import restrictions, price supports and other subsidies that have transformed American farming and ranching into a vast socialist enterprise? You betcha.
Washington Post Article
Setting aside the hypocrisy of Grassley’s inquisitions what about their legality or constitutionality. On what grounds does he request information about the funding sources or uses of funds from non-profit organizations, including churches. Should the dislike of a practice be sufficient? Should the assertion “"I have come to understand that money from the pharmaceutical industry can shape the practices of nonprofit organizations that purport to be independent in their viewpoints and actions" be grounds enough to engage in a witch hunt?
Has anyone else found it peculiar that Grassley has gone after psychiatry and churches? Is this the same as going off the deep end?
There are some on Grassley’s staff, what’s left of it, that think so:
(S)enior staffers….have have expressed profound discomfort with Senator Grassley’s actions, and wondered, rightly, whether this was not a simple assault on American religious freedom. If the United States Senate can de facto audit these preachers at whim and absent evidence of wrongdoing, what’s the barrier to doing the same to Catholics, Baptists, Anglicans, Jews, Muslims, or Mormons? Is the standard now one of mere Senatorial dislike? How is this standard not inherently politicized? The conversation ended with both of them expressing displeasure with the Senator, and grave reservations on his sense of proportion — and Constitutional propriety.
Senator Grassley is a fixture in Washington, D.C., and in Iowa politics, and so he is used to getting what he wants. But when even his own office is riven with doubts on his pet causes — on Constitutional grounds, no less — it’s time to ask the good Senator to step back, and check the hubris.”
Then again, as others have noted, you can get Grassley to see your way by making sure your solution is “Iowa-based” if you know what I mean…
The American Psychiatric Association and pharma might be able to solve their problem by dumping every dime of CME into a new Grassley Center for Continuing Medical Education at the University of Iowa which would be run out of a new building that would rise up in flood ravaged downtown Des Moines.
I bet then Grassley’s understanding of how money from pharma shapes nonprofit practices would be transformed….
"I have come to understand that money from the pharmaceutical industry can shape the practices of nonprofit organizations that purport to be independent in their viewpoints and actions," Mr. Grassley said.
That’s rich, coming from someone who said: "everything about ethanol is good, good, good."
I have come to understand that money from the soybean and biofuels industry can shape the practices of a Senator from Iowa that purports to be independent in his viewspoints and actions and who makes a career implying that money alone is the sole factor in forming judgments.
Or how about taking responsibility for creating and propping up this monster called ethanol?
“According to the Global Subsidies Initiative of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, ethanol tax credits and incentives will cost U.S. tax payers between $6.3 and 8.7 billion dollars annually between 2006 and 2012. Additionally, according to a study conducted by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University, the price of ethanol is being held artificially high by import tariffs imposed on foreign producers of ethanol. According to one of the authors, “Removing trade distortions would decrease the price for U.S. ethanol, while the world price would increase, as U.S. demand — and ethanol imports — would increase.” The drop in domestic ethanol prices could be as much as 18%.”
Now, I might be mistaken. But for a guy who is stressed about governmenet officials being too cozy with industry Grassley might want to start with himself. Here’s the record:
“Agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland Co. (ADM), the single largest beneficiary of a controversial federal ethanol tax subsidy, contributed more than $3 million in unregulated "soft money" to Republican and Democratic national party committees during the past 10 years, according to a study by Common Cause.
ADM gave direct political action committee contributions to congressional candidates: $700,170 to Democrats and $529,276 to Republicans from Jan. 1, 1987, to Dec, 31, 1997, according to the report.
The top recipient in the Senate was Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who got $34,500. The Senate Republican who received the most was Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), with $17,000.”
ADM has been a prime beneficiary of the federal tax credit on ethanol, which the refiner can apply to the tax it pays on corporate income. First implemented in 1978, the tax credit currently stands at 51 cents per gallon of ethanol sold. The Government Accounting Office estimates the subsidies to the ethanol industry from 1980-2000 at $11 billion. As the biggest ethanol producer in the US, ADM has received the largest portion of the government's generosity.
According to the Heritage Foundation:
Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) has extensive farm interests, as do some members of his immediate family. Listing his home address as Arlington, Virginia, Grassley received $225,041 in USDA subsidies for corn and soybeans and disaster assistance between 1995 and 2005.[8]
In New Hartford, Iowa, Senator Grassley's son Robin has received $653,833 in subsidy payments, mostly for corn and soybeans.[9] Patrick Grassley, the Senator's grandson, who also lives in New Hartford, received $5,964 in subsidies in 2005.[10]
In 2003 an energy bill authorized $1.75 billion over seven years in "transition" assistance to MTBE manufactures, including oil companies and refiners, as they scaled back production because of state bans on the product. The bill extended a Senate-proposed federal MTBE phaseout from four years to 10 years.
The largest GOP recipient of cash who in turn supported the measure?
Chuck Grassley.
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/news-article.aspx?storyid=10915
Over the years Grassley has received $1.5 million in direct campaign contributions from agribusinesss and energy interests, the largest source of cash next to health insurance companies which has been part of a quid pro quo for all sorts of goodies for Iowa.
Here’s the Washington Post’s Steven Pearlstein on Grassley who objected to parts of the housing bill that might be used to underwrite failing investment banks:
Well, isn’t this rich: Max Baucus of Montana and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Finance Committee are suddenly in a lather that taxpayer funds might be implicated in the Federal Reserve’s rescue of Bear Stearns.
Would that be the same Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley who have made careers out of protecting and enhancing the lavish system of import restrictions, price supports and other subsidies that have transformed American farming and ranching into a vast socialist enterprise? You betcha.
Washington Post Article
Setting aside the hypocrisy of Grassley’s inquisitions what about their legality or constitutionality. On what grounds does he request information about the funding sources or uses of funds from non-profit organizations, including churches. Should the dislike of a practice be sufficient? Should the assertion “"I have come to understand that money from the pharmaceutical industry can shape the practices of nonprofit organizations that purport to be independent in their viewpoints and actions" be grounds enough to engage in a witch hunt?
Has anyone else found it peculiar that Grassley has gone after psychiatry and churches? Is this the same as going off the deep end?
There are some on Grassley’s staff, what’s left of it, that think so:
(S)enior staffers….have have expressed profound discomfort with Senator Grassley’s actions, and wondered, rightly, whether this was not a simple assault on American religious freedom. If the United States Senate can de facto audit these preachers at whim and absent evidence of wrongdoing, what’s the barrier to doing the same to Catholics, Baptists, Anglicans, Jews, Muslims, or Mormons? Is the standard now one of mere Senatorial dislike? How is this standard not inherently politicized? The conversation ended with both of them expressing displeasure with the Senator, and grave reservations on his sense of proportion — and Constitutional propriety.
Senator Grassley is a fixture in Washington, D.C., and in Iowa politics, and so he is used to getting what he wants. But when even his own office is riven with doubts on his pet causes — on Constitutional grounds, no less — it’s time to ask the good Senator to step back, and check the hubris.”
Then again, as others have noted, you can get Grassley to see your way by making sure your solution is “Iowa-based” if you know what I mean…
The American Psychiatric Association and pharma might be able to solve their problem by dumping every dime of CME into a new Grassley Center for Continuing Medical Education at the University of Iowa which would be run out of a new building that would rise up in flood ravaged downtown Des Moines.
I bet then Grassley’s understanding of how money from pharma shapes nonprofit practices would be transformed….
