Honeybees Suck, But Horses Are OK

by publius

One more -- here's a press release from a horse trade group thanking McConnell and Bunning for getting horses included in the livestock disaster program.

The release goes on to say:

...Last year Senators Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Jim Bunning (R-KY) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) introduced the Equine Equity Act (EEA), which proposed to put all racehorses in the three-year category for depreciation purposes and make horses eligible for capital gains tax treatment after being held for twelve months. ...

Horses Specifically Included as Livestock in Disaster Assistance Program

The Farm Bill also includes a new permanent disaster assistance program that will provide relief funds to farmers and ranchers who suffer losses in areas that are declared disaster areas by USDA.  This program is intended to make funds available sooner following a disaster.  Horses are specifically included within the definition of livestock eligible for the program.  “The inclusion of horses was pursuant to an amendment offered by Senator Bunning to the Senate Farm Bill.  The provision was accepted by the Conference Committee,” said Hickey.  “This is important to the horse industry and we appreciate his efforts.”

Have at 'em Neil!

Comments

[Anthony Damiani]

I'm.... not seeing the problem.

It's something McConnell did, so I assume I disapprove of it in some fashion, but aren't horses livestock?

[Eric Martin]

I think the problem is the hypocrisy. No on honeybees, yes on horses.

When, in actuality, honeybees are vital to our food production capacity and, thus, crucial to our nation's interests - foreign and domestic.

Horses haven't had much utility since the nascent days of the automobile and railroad.

[Model 62]

anthony damiani: McConnell -- and Cavuto, apparently -- are railing against a provision in the Stim. Bill that continues the same Disaster Assistance for Livestock (including racehorses) program McConnell voted for last year.

[KCinDC]

The problem is that Republicans attack things that they can make sound silly as "pork", when the things they themselves sponsor are no different. Remember McCain railing against spending on studying bear DNA, while his running mate's request for funds to study harbor seal DNA was just fine. The Democrats need to figure out an effective response to this sort of demagogic know-nothingism.

[Eric Martin]

Also what Model 62 said: McConnel and Vitter voted yes on the proposed spending measure twice in the past couple of years.

But now?

Now it's frivolous pork and an unnecessary spending measure.

[publius]

right - what eric said. this post probably makes less sense until you read the preceding ones. so sorry about that

[cleek]

The problem is that Republicans attack things that they can make sound silly as "pork", when the things they themselves sponsor are no different. Remember McCain railing against spending on studying bear DNA, while his running mate's request for funds to study harbor seal DNA was just fine.

i've been saying (every chance i get) that this is exactly how the GOP maintains its reputation of fiscal responsibility. it's not by being actually responsible or prudent; it's by screaming and crying when Dems spend on anything, while counting on the fact that the Dems won't complain when the GOP spends. so, because the only voices screaming about spending are GOP voices - even though they only scream about Dem spending - the GOP gets a reputation for fiscal responsibility.

it's just "working the ref", but it's effective.

[Alex]

I also don't see the problem here, and yes honeybees should be included. For Eric who thinks that horse are virtually useless, you are absolutely clueless. Not only that but, they should be regarded as a protected national treasure for the way we have used and abused them for our benefit.

[russell]

I think Michael D Brown is behind this.

[Eric Martin]

Well, the "problem" would be that some parties wanted to exclude honeybees.

For Eric who thinks that horse are virtually useless, you are absolutely clueless.

Not useless. But are they a vital national interest? How?

Not only that but, they should be regarded as a protected national treasure for the way we have used and abused them for our benefit.

I'm sympathetic to this argument. But what do you mean "protected"? By whom, in what ways and for how much?

[Slartibartfast]

I think Michael D Brown is behind this

I was trying to work that one in. I actually went to AHC's site to see if maybe Brown was on their payroll.

[Alex]

Defending America's heritage and culture should not be a republican trait. Since the bald eagle is not vital, we could save money by not protecting them too right? Or any endangered animal for that matter...well we might as well let oil drilling in our protected wildlife reserves.

[Eric Martin]

Um, Alex, whose points, exactly, are you addressing?

Please re-read my comments. You seem to be missing my point completely.

Could you please point to where I said that we should turn a blind eye to the slaughter of horses? Or that should horses fall into the endangered species category, we should do nothing for them?

Where I said we should allow oil drilling on our protected wildlife reserves?

Just to be clear: What I DID say was that it was hypocritical for McConnel et al to push for special breaks for horse owners, and not for the bee industry.

Further, I said that bees - at this juncture - are more vital to our well being and, thus, deserve extra consideration. They are, after all, vital to our food production efforts. That doesn't mean that I don't like horses, value horses or that I want to turn all horses into glue. Or drill on wildlife reserves.

I'm very much an animal lover/defender.

However, what about McConnel's horse bill in particular did you like? In what way was it "defending America's heritage"? Defending horses from being wiped out?

Was it that the bill "put all racehorses in the three-year category for depreciation purposes and make horses eligible for capital gains tax treatment after being held for twelve months"?

Or was it this:

"The Farm Bill also includes a new permanent disaster assistance program that will provide relief funds to farmers and ranchers who suffer losses in areas that are declared disaster areas by USDA. This program is intended to make funds available sooner following a disaster. Horses are specifically included within the definition of livestock eligible for the program"?

[Alex]

Your point I agree with, but the below are statements/questions used to support your point which I took issue with...now we are just looking for the last word so I will not revisit this site.
I am addressing your following statements:
"Horses haven't had much utility since the nascent days of the automobile and railroad."
"But are they a vital national interest? How?"

[Eric Martin]

I am addressing your following statements

See, I wish that you actually had.

[wonkie]

Well obviously bee farming must be a blue state thing and horse raising is a red state thing. Isn't McConnel from Kentucky?

And, yes, this is how Republicans got their reputation for being fiscally conservative--by being intellectually dishonest hypocrits.

Is that how "hypocrit" is spelled?

They are just bad people. I am referring to the R's in Congress.

[russell]

Well obviously bee farming must be a blue state thing and horse raising is a red state thing.

Actually I think beekeeping goes on pretty much everywhere. Maybe not in desert states, other than that I think it's pretty widespread.

Of course, we could just outsource it to China or Yugoslavia or some other, similar place. At pollination time we'll just bring the bees over in container ships, then send them back when we're done.

Is that how "hypocrit" is spelled?

Tack an 'e' on the end.

[wonkie]

But wouldn't that be hypocrite with a long i?

I know that beekeeping isn't literally a blue state thing. However I think my point is vaild: Republicans will steer money to the special interests associated with their states and bitch about waste if money goes elsewhere. The pretense that they are resppnsible stewards of our money comes from their intellectually dishonest tactic of grabbing out of cntext details to make mocking soundbites.

Hypocrites!

[Hartmut]

Drat, I wanted to insert Heckuva Job Brownie* first.

*Hm, that could actually be the name of someone ;-)

[russell]

But wouldn't that be hypocrite with a long i?

English is a perverse language.

However I think my point is vaild: Republicans will steer money to the special interests associated with their states and bitch about waste if money goes elsewhere.

I agree with this. Everybody tries to steer money to their state, but I think the Republicans are particularly big on calling everything else waste.

Hm, that could actually be the name of someone

And if not someone, then definitely a baked good!

[KCinDC]

Isn't beekeeping a big thing for Utah and Mormons?