Monsanto Protection Law passed and signed by O... - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

spdrun · #1 03-28-2013, 12:14 PM

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/how_the_monsanto_protection_act_snuck_into_law/

tbomachines · #2 03-28-2013, 12:32 PM

Just another day in Washington. Amazing what "sneaks" in.

JamesDean · #3 03-28-2013, 12:36 PM

I dont really think things "sneak" in either. It seems that this was part of a larger Agriculture appropriations bill? What would have happened had the bill been vetoed?

greazzer · #4 03-28-2013, 12:38 PM

I remembering watching a TV documentary on how Monsanto has a virtual monoply over most of the major seeds, e.g., soy, corn, et cet., and how they control the farmers and what seeds they sow. Anybody who tries to purchase a seed from a different source or use their own seeds ends up being sued and demolished by the corporate giant. In the same show was commentary about rain water and how corporations even own the rain water in certain foreign countries. Very scary stuff. Not too surprised that B.O. signed it, however. Will the government take over seeds next? Healthcare needed a boost. Solar Panel companies needed a boost too. My guess is that the seed industry needed a boost next.

spdrun · #5 03-28-2013, 12:38 PM

Probably nothing good. Nice culture of blackmail there.

tbomachines · #6 03-28-2013, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesDean

I dont really think things "sneak" in either. It seems that this was part of a larger Agriculture appropriations bill? What would have happened had the bill been vetoed?

True - I read the "anonymous addition to the bill" as secretive. Not the same, so good call. Its still crap though, I wish legislators would stand by this sort of thing and at least put their name to it when they put it in.

elchivito · #7 03-28-2013, 03:23 PM

Part of the farm bill. Oh my goodness we must pass the farm bill. Think of the farmers...

JamesDean · #8 03-28-2013, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

Part of the farm bill. Oh my goodness we must pass the farm bill. Think of the farmers...

Think of the child farmers! errrr farmers that are children. err farmers that have children?

Pooka · #9 03-28-2013, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greazzer

I remembering watching a TV documentary on how Monsanto has a virtual monoply over most of the major seeds, e.g., soy, corn, et cet., and how they control the farmers and what seeds they sow. Anybody who tries to purchase a seed from a different source or use their own seeds ends up being sued and demolished by the corporate giant. In the same show was commentary about rain water and how corporations even own the rain water in certain foreign countries. Very scary stuff. Not too surprised that B.O. signed it, however. Will the government take over seeds next? Healthcare needed a boost. Solar Panel companies needed a boost too. My guess is that the seed industry needed a boost next.

In the old days you would take your cotton to the gin, they would gin it, take a cut of what you received for the cotton, and give you the seeds back so you could do what them what you wished. As a matter of fact, you can still easily get this deal at any gin in the US.

The new seeds cost more than regular cotton seeds up front, but the long term use of them is cheaper when you factor in the built in bug resistance, increased production, higher quality and the higher price you get for your cotton. A part of the deal is that you don't get the seed back.

Yes, more up front, but at the end of the day they are way cheaper than growing the old type of seed. Even after you factor in buying new seed each year you still come out ahead on the deal.

No one is forcing cotton farmers to buy this new type of seed, but a lot of them are doing it.

Pooka · #10 03-28-2013, 05:25 PM

I recall something like this that was 'snuck' into a Bill that Bush and the Republicans pushed through. There was a concern that some vaccines caused Autism and a lot of folks were up in arms about it and were talking about suing the vaccine makers.

So an item was inserted into a Bill that gave them immunity to any harm caused to anyone by their vaccines.

The outrage from the right wing press was zero, and even though a lot of the folks concerned about this were strong Conservatives they all fell into line with the solution. After all, what were they going to do? NOT vote Republican?

dynalow · #11 03-28-2013, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

Part of the farm bill. Oh my goodness we must pass the farm bill. Think of the farmers...

Think of the ethanol.......

dynalow · #12 03-28-2013, 05:52 PM

Nothing new here. Move along T'was ever thus.

I remember this from yesteryear. The '86 Tax Reform Act section was written describing and limiting it applicability to specific property located in specific areas which turned out to benefit limited areas in California mainly owned by the Gallo family. The section dealt with estate taxes and payments.

He was against it before he was for it.

........"Dole was a Republican and Cranston was a Democrat, but the story hops over to the other side of the aisle eight years later. In 1986, the Democrats were rewriting the tax code (again). The Gallos decided that an amendment on the table could lower their inheritance taxes further still, so they lobbied for it. And who did they lobby but the very guy who had derisively labeled Cranston's amendment eight years earlier: Bob Dole. We don't know was said in private, but what a coincidence that when Bob Dole supported this second amendment, his political action committee (PAC) received four $5,000 checks from Ernest, Ernest's wife, Julio, and Julio's wife. The favorable tax treatment authorized by the amendment expired in 1990--maybe that's where your professor got the idea that the Gallo law expired the next day. He may also have confused the Cranston Gallo law with the Dole Gallo law. Easy enough to do--as you can see, there are a lot of Gallo laws. "

The Straight Dope: Does the "Gallo Law" exempt the winery from estate taxes?

aklim · #13 03-28-2013, 10:24 PM

Question: What would Bush, Obama or any President do with the situation? People act as though the President can do it but will not. Fact is the Prez is powerless, really. Even some state Governors are more powerful in that they have line item veto that the Prez doesn't have. In WI, the Governor can take a passage, cut and past it till it says what he wants. Prez doesn't get to do that. All he can do is sign it or veto it. All or nothing. So if you want to blame Bush, Obama, Carter, Bush Sr, etc, etc, go for it but unless we give them at the minimum, line item veto (IIRC, it didn't pass constitutional muster), what we have is what I have always called a hostage situation. I sneak in a piece of pork in legislature that will give money to schools. Either you sign it all or I denounce you as the Prez that doesn't give a crap about the poor students.

Quote:

According to some scholars, Wisconsin has used four types of extraordinary partial vetoes. The first, the "digit veto", was first used by Governor Patrick Lucey in 1973. In appropriation for $25 million, he vetoed the digit 2, resulting in an appropriation of $5 million. Just two years later, Lucey introduced the "editing veto". In this instance, the word "not" was removed in the phrase "not less than 50 percent", thus resulting in the opposite effect than desired by the legislature. In 1983, an even more extreme version, the "pick-a-letter" or "Vanna White veto" was introduced. Governor Anthony Earl edited a 121-word, five-sentence paragraph down to a one-sentence, 22-word paragraph to change an appeals process from the courts to the Public Service Commission. The final version, the "reduction veto", was introduced in 1993 by Governor Tommy Thompson. This resulted in a legislatively-appropriated amount being reduced arbitrarily by the governor. This unprecedented usage has resulted in eight lawsuits and numerous amendment proposals. In the first lawsuit, State ex. rel. Wisconsin Telephone Co. v. Henry, the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted absolute partial veto power to the Governor as long as a workable, complete law remained, stating the governor had "the right to pass independently on every separable piece of legislation in an appropriation bill." The only judicial limitation was Risser v. Klauser, which prohibited the "reduction veto", stating that "the constitution prohibits a writein veto of monetary figures which are not appropriation amounts." Earlier, in 1990, an amendment was passed outlawing the "Vanna White veto". Yet, in 2011, Governor Scott Walker controversially crossed out 116 words in a pension-related section of the budget bill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto_in_the_United_States

TwitchKitty · #14 03-30-2013, 09:33 AM

Isn't there a song about this?

This land is your land, (if you can afford lobbyists)
This land is my land, (if I can afford lobbyists)
From California,
To the Gulf Stream waters....

Renntag · #15 03-30-2013, 11:18 AM

Sadly it does seem that without lobbyists in your pocket you have no voice.

I would like to learn more about 933 and see what the Monsanto portion entails. To protect a multi billion dollar corporation that doesnt have American health and safety as it's first concern is just wrong.

Interesting points made above.

Has anyone read the bill?