In a previous post, I wrote about how the coal industry got its way with ACES, the Waxman-Markey climate bill. Much of their victory had to do with sharply limiting the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency, whose chartered purpose is to protect the environment, and therefore, public health.
The agribusiness industry won a similar victory. When Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), chair of the House Agriculture Committee and point person for an alliance of rural and coal state Democrats seeking to weaken the bill, put his foot down and said, "I'm pretty sure that any role for EPA in agriculture is a deal breaker."
Rep. Peterson's main complaint about the first draft of ACES, and what seemed to be the general complaint of the House Agriculture Committee, was that the legislation didn't give farmers enough money for things they were already doing. Throw more money at us based on no scientific evidence whatsoever, he said, or no deal.
House leadership took Peterson at his word. Like, for example, this word:
The statewide Dem candidates have said they're prepared to return over-the-limit campaign contributions, but Republicans? Their grab-all-you-can legislation created the mess, and now, clutching the boodle to their breasts, they whine about giving it back like a five year old who wants to keep the neighbor kid's toys.
Rep. Jane Cunningham, a St. Louis County Republican who is running for the Senate, said refunds would be unfair because that would help slow-starting campaigns instead of those who hustled to raise funds early. She could be forced to return $35,800. "It's not the American way to advantage people who have sat on their thumbs," she said.
If Republicans "hustled", to use her word, the definition that applies would be this one: to earn one's living by illicit or unethical means.
Last June, Matt Blunt took tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from individuals affiliated with the Dairy Farmers of America, a large milk marketing organization with offices in Kansas City.
Now comes word that the Blunt Administration is providing a five year, no-bid contract to DFA to conduct "state" safety testing on the milk it sells.
On few issues is the line dividing Democrats from Republicans 100 percent pure and obvious, and the CAFO issue is not one of them.
Democrats don't always behave as I would have them do. Democratic Rep. Ike Skelton (pictured), for example, is sponsoring House legislation (a companion bill to one being offered by Kit Bond) to have CAFO (Contained Animal Feeding Operation) waste declared non-toxic. Such a law would effectively remove CAFOs from EPA oversight.
To pretend that animal waste in those concentrations isn't toxic is horse hockey. McDonald County, in the very southwest corner of the state, is dotted with CAFOs, and every water body in that county is on the impaired water bodies list.
In defiance of the DNR's constitutional mandate to protect the health and well being of Missourians, to protect the quality and quantity of water in the state, and to protect our state parks and historic sites, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is determined to license CAFOs.
As I reported in my last posting, the DNR just last Friday licensed a chicken CAFO on the uplands above Roaring River State Park, less than a mile from the park boundary, and it is set soon to do the same for a hog CAFO less than two miles from Arrow Rock State Park, close to the village of Arrow Rock, a picturesque historic site, known for its historic Lyceum Theater.
All right, you city folk, buckle up, because I'm about to take you on a ride out into the country to find out about a battle that's brewing. A group of Missourians is girding to fight more than City Hall. Citizens near the state parks in Arrow Rock, Roaring River and Battle of Athens are about to sue the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the state of Missouri over CAFOs (contained animal feeding operations).
The dispute began when landowners applied for CAFO licenses near those three state parks, and the DNR supported them at every turn against the objections of other locals. After all, a farm with 4800 hogs or 65,000 chickens stinks to high heaven. And aside from their own preferences about not having to live with that stench, many local landowners get their livelihood from the tourist industry in and around the state parks. ("Hey, Joe, what say we go down to Roaring River this weekend for some trout fishing?" "Sure. Sounds good." "It is good, long as you don't mind smelling chicken shit while you're casting." "Um, no thanks.")
The statewide Dem candidates have said they're prepared to return over-the-limit campaign contributions, but Republicans? Their grab-all-you-can legislation created the mess, and now, clutching the boodle to their breasts, they whine about giving it back like a five year old who wants to 
On few issues is the line dividing Democrats from Republicans 100 percent pure and obvious, and the CAFO issue is not one of them. 
All right, you city folk, buckle up, because I'm about to take you on a ride out into the country to find out about a battle that's brewing. A group of Missourians is girding to fight more than City Hall. Citizens near the state parks in Arrow Rock, Roaring River and Battle of Athens are about to sue the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the state of Missouri over CAFOs (contained animal feeding operations).