IS IT TRUE DECEMBER 3, 2015

IS IT TRUE todays “Readers Poll”is: “Are you pleased with the way Governor Pence has conducted himself over the last four (4) years”?

IS IT TRUE we are hoping to have at least 2 million page views by the end of the year?

IS IT TRUE you can expect some activity on our site spearheaded by our Webmaster? …we urge you to be patient with us over the next couple of days?

IS IT TRUE that starting next Monday IIT will posted twice a week? …you can expect to read IS IT TRUE on Monday and Thursday of each week?

IS IT TRUE we would like to share with you a new publication called FEDERAL FUMBLES-100 Ways The Government Dropped The Ball? …this publication was created by United States Senator James Lankford form Oklahoma? …you can Goggle it to read the entire publication? …heres a few TID BITS from this publication that we thought you would enjoy?

GOT GNATCATCHERS?

Congress should establish a policy that all grants issued by the Department of Defense must support national security FWS listed the coastal CAGN, a tiny blue-gray bird, as a “threatened” species in 1993. Earlier this year, DOD issued a grant worth $283,500 to survey “at least ten California gnatcatcher (CAGN) pairs in order to determine use throughout each vegetation alliance.” Thankfully DOD provides an explanation for this, which includes monitoring of CAGN nests, the ability of baby CAGNs to learn to fly, and the temperature and availability of food around the nest. The surveyor would also document any instances of cowbirds, another small bird, laying eggs in CAGN nests. (Note: Evidently the Cowbirds tend to do this for some reason.)

In what universe should DOD spend $283,500 to study the day-to-day life of a tiny bird? How is American national security strengthened by this study? DOD should be in the business of defense, not nature conservancy. First, there is an entire federal agency that does things like this: FWS. Second, any project like this, regardless of the agency in charge, should always have to publicly demonstrate the purpose and rationale for any grant, and publicly release the findings afterwards.

Congress should work with DOD to ensure there are no federal restrictions to the Department remaining completely focused on keeping the homeland safe. DOD should not feel obligated to fulfill the mission of other federal agencies. It has a tough enough job already

A $4 MILLION REBEL

Last year, Congress gave $500 million in federal tax money to train and provide equipment for at least 5,400 Syrian rebels fighting against ISIL. Over the next year, DOD spent about half of that amount and managed to train an overwhelming force of 60 fighters. In other words DOD spent about $4 million per rebel.

This resounding lack of success is likely why on October 9, 2015, the Obama Administration announced a “pause” in the program to reevaluate how the U.S. would support those fighting against ISIL. In a press release, DOD announced it would begin to provide equipment and weapons to select rebel leaders instead of training them.

It is good DOD finally recognized that this training and equipping program did not work. However, it should not have taken a year and $250 million to figure that out. DOD should have evaluated this program at every stage rather than wait a year to decide its fate. The federal government absolutely needs to support those who fight on the ground against this terrorist group. But Americans deserved to get more for their tax money. A clear Syria strategy is long overdue from this White House. Americans can see the obvious threat, and most Americans understand that sending 60 rebels into Syria at a cost of $4 million each is not a winning strategy.

THE TRUTH IS NOT CHEAP

The cost of telling the truth? Apparently, it is $545,000 at State. In March 2014 State’s School of Leadership and Management sought a contractor to provide training courses to “senior level officials on effective congressional testimony and briefing skills.”  The name of the course? “Communicating with Congress: Briefing and Testifying.  Additionally the contractor would assist with the design of congressional testimony prep classes for individuals who are nominated to be ambassadors and one-on-one classes for individuals set to testify before Congress.

So basically American taxpayers paid more than $500,000 to have a contractor teach people how to sit before a congressional committee and answer questions.

It is understandable that State wants to prepare its witnesses, perhaps to avoid embarrassing situations such as the nominee-to-be Ambassador to China saying, “I’m no real expert on China” or its nominee for the U.S. representative in Norway who testified about the non-existent president of that country. But does the federal government really need to hire an outside contractor to train federal officials and nominees on how to testify before Congress and tell the truth? Surely not.

Congress should use its oversight responsibilities to guide federal agencies (not contractors) to handle training or other internal matters that could be undertaken by staff already on the federal payroll. Another idea is to tell all State Department staff to just honor any mom’s advice, “When in doubt, tell

CAUTION: READ BEFORE EATING!

Allow restaurants and grocery stores to continue labeling food as they do today or list details on their website. You are what you eat, and the Federal Government wants to make sure you know it.  Starting December 1, 2015, an FDA rule will require all restaurants, gas stations, entertainment venues, and grocery stores with 20 or more locations to list the total caloric value of the prepared food and drinks they sell. For example Domino’s Pizza, which already posts its nutrition information online, will be required to develop new labels with caloric values for every pizza sold. Domino’s and Pizza Hut will be forced to label more than five million potential custom pizza options with specific caloric intake information, costing individual stores thousands of dollars.

Grocery stores will also be required to list the caloric values of prepared foods they serve that are intended to be eaten immediately. According to the Food Marketing Institute, this new rule could cost the grocery industry a colossal $1 billion in compliance in the first year alone.  Since these institutions will simply pass along the increased costs to consumers, the immediate result of the new menu labels will be higher food prices for consumers. Families will pay more for food purchased at grocery stores and for pizza they order for dinner.

Trust Americans to pick the food they like and want. Drop the entire labeling requirement. If all of the menu labeling cannot be eliminated, at least consider Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers’s (WA) Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act of 2015, which will provide flexibilities to restaurants to include either the number of calories contained in a whole menu item or the number of servings and calories per serving. Additionally the Act would allow nutritional information to be provided on an Internet menu for food establishments where the majority of orders are delivery or takeout.