Skip to comments.Islamic group once tied to terror trial received thousands in farm subsidies, without...
Posted on 02/01/2014 5:27:22 AM PST by Libloather
The subsidies to the North American Islamic Trust are just a slice of the questionable payments that, as has been well documented, go to millionaires and non-farmers every year. But as Congress moves to rein in the program, these subsidies stand out considering the group's involvement in the Holy Land Foundation case of 2008. During the trial, the group's farm subsidies stopped, only to be reinstated after a federal judge cleared them.
Records show that since 1998, the North American Islamic Trust has received over $10,000 across 34 separate taxpayer-funded programs. NAIT's two relatively small land plots are tax-zoned as "agricultural" -- but they aren't developed.
The group has been able to obtain farm subsidies legally without producing any crops because it is a nonprofit "charity group" landowner -- so it received subsidies on top of being tax-exempt.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Why does anyone get subsidies???
Because greedy Congressmen who had land wanted a bigger piece of the pie, so they passed farm subsidies to NOT farm in order to raise the prices of milk, butter, cheese, etc. Just another scam courtesy of politics that started decades ago.
I am trying to grow bluegrass, I think I will apply for a subsidy. It ain’t a cheap proposition
Because we lowered the import tariffs.
Agriculture used to be (and still should be) considered a military sensitive industry. You have to be able to feed an army. We never want to become dependent on foreign countries for the majority of our food.
Non-profit? Hey, My 15 acres qualify! Where my money!
This is from 2004. I imagine it is worse now.
U.S. Food Imports Now Exceed Exports
THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER
November 10, 2004, Issue #379
Monitoring Corporate Agribusiness
>From a Public Interest Perspective
EDITOR\PUBLISHER; A.V. Krebs
WEB SITE: http://www.ea1.com/CARP/
TO RECEIVE: Send name and address
INCREASING IMPORTS OF FOOD CREATING TRADE PROBLEMS FOR U.S ECONOMY
SCOTT KILMAN, WALL STREET JOURNAL (11/8/04): America’s appetite for imported food is creating problems for the U.S. economy.
Agriculture, one of the few big sectors of the economy that could be counted
on to produce trade surpluses, has recently generated monthly deficits -— a
development that could worsen the nation’s already significant trade
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. imported more
agricultural goods than it exported in June and August, the first monthly
trade deficits since 1986, when the Farm Belt was mired in a depression.
“It’s very worrisome,” said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist of banking giant
Wells Fargo & Co. “We need agricultural trade surpluses more than ever
because the nonagricultural deficit is ballooning.”
I see. Is that why we are planning on importing Chinese chicken, labeled as “Made in USA”?
We're doing that because we're stupid. Same reason we lowered the import tariffs in the first place.
After all the unsafe food that has originated out of China, to even allow food imports from China, much less weaken the country of origin labeling is akin to murder. And it's economic suicide.
My guess is it's Obama showing the Clinton's who is president. After all Hillary got rich off of the Tyson's.
It goes back before Obama:
Although supermarket labels may not always indicate it, a growing portion of the American diet is now made in China. In 2009 alone, 70 percent of the apple juice, 43 percent of the processed mushrooms, 22 percent of the frozen spinach and 78 percent of the tilapia Americans consumed came from China.
But despite a well-documented pattern of chemical adulteration and unsafe drug residues, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has done little to address the growing tide of food imports from the nation. The FDA inspects less than 2 percent of imported food and rarely visits Chinese food manufacturers. Between 2009 and 2010,The FDA conducted only 13 food inspections in China.
U.S. food safety inspectors have been overwhelmed by the surging food imports from China since the country joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. These international business deals allow trade to trump food safety and encourage U.S. agribusinesses and food manufacturers to source food ingredients from China where environmental, food safety and labor laws are weaker and regulatory oversight is lax.
The shortcomings in Chinas food safety system were brought to light when ingredients tainted with the chemical melamine entered the global food supply including products from well-known brands such as Mars, Heinz and Cadbury.
Melamine-tainted milk products sickened hundreds of thousands of infants in China, and melamine contamination is believed to be responsible for thousands of pet deaths in the United States. And while this chemical has garnered the most headlines, systemic food safety failures in China have allowed countless unsafe products onto global grocery store shelves. Nonetheless, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is considering allowing U.S. food retailers to import chicken from China. It is time for a common-sense approach to inspecting imported food and preventing the globalization of the food supply from sickening our citizens.
A major reason to always read labels to see where product is made, and avoid China products.
However, COOL does not require strict labeling procedures for all types of meat, providing some relief for the meat industry. Labels for ground meat, for instance, are not required by law to list the countries in which the product remained for less than 60 days, although it still must list the other countries.
Processed meats, such as hot dogs, also are not required to adhere to COOL standards. Imported processed meat must continue listing the country of origin on the label, the USDA noted, but these items do not need to provide additional information about the animals living and processing locations.
In addition, the updated labeling law allows grocers to continue using older, less specific labels on food packages as long as proper signage near the product provides a more detailed list of the country of origin information.
Food products, both imported and domestic, must meet the food safety standards of USDAs Food Safety and Inspection Service and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, USDA officials added. Food safety and traceability are not the stated intent of the rule, and the COOL program does not replace any other established regulatory programs that related to food safety or traceability.
The USDA listed on its website examples of the meat products that must follow the new guidelines:
Muscle cuts of beef (including veal), lamb, pork, goat, and chicken;
Ground beef, ground lamb, ground pork, ground goat, and ground chicken;
Farm raised fish and shellfish;
Wild fish and shellfish;
Perishable agricultural commodities
I'm of the opinion that we need to drop out of the WTO, and incrementally raise import tariffs until unemployment drops (shadowstats.com stats not the understated stats currently published by gov't)
Our stores are full of Chinese made products while Americans sit idle. And there are still at least 200 million more Chinese making less than 1.50 a day, ready to come in from the fields and put more Americans out of work.
“I see. Is that why we are planning on importing Chinese chicken, labeled as Made in USA?”
We will send the good US chickens to China. They will be fed to Chinese consumers. The bird flu tainted Chinese chickens will be processed and shipped to the US.
This is called “free trade”.
I agree. Too bad our “leaders” don’t.
This gives ‘buy local’ or ‘raise your own’ a brand new meaning and we should try to follow....and more openly explains that NOT SAFE “Food Safety Act of 2010”, which Congress passed as stupidly as Obama Care.
“U.S. food safety inspectors have been overwhelmed by the surging food imports from China since the country joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. “
The answer to this is simple. Hire the inspectors and charge the importers a direct fee on each container imported to offset the cost of the inspections.
Free trade does not mean giving importers a free ride. Let the users of services bear the cost directly.
Importers and foreign factories are subsidized by the taxpayer while domestic competitors pay taxes to the US government. Elimination of import tariffs in the name of “free trade” while levying the highest corporate tax rates in the world on domestic companies has resulted in the export of businesses and jobs. The playing field is not even. The US producers pay US taxes and are subject to US regulations with respect to product quality and safety. The foreign factories pay no taxes to the US government and escape the regulatory burden. We have a situation where US companies pay dearly for access to the US marketplace while foreign competitors have free access.
There are multiple ways to address the problem.
1) Eliminate all taxes on domestically produced products.
2) Levy a market access fee (tariff) on foreign goods brought into the US.
3) Directly charge importers for the government services they use via a fee on every container brought into the US. This fee should cover the operating costs of the Customs Service, incoming agricultural and product quality inspections, the US Coast Guard, a portion of the cost of the US Navy which keeps the international sea lanes open, and the Army Corps of Engineers expenditures for keeping ports and navigable waterways open.
With respect to #3 let the users (i.e. the importers) pay for the services. Why should the taxpayer be subsidizing trade? Let the foreign factories pay.
Sick, sick, sick.