A month ago I questioned Renee Ellmers' misguided equivocation in the matter of earmarks. But being new to her seat she has yet to cast a single vote. Also, being unfamiliar with her new position she could have easily miscalculated the weight of her words. Lastly, I tend to critique politician in power by their vote rather than their words.
Ricard Burr, by contrast has been in power and has a voting record on which he can be judged. Although I was aware of his recent votes on DADT, his penchant for earmarks ($105,803,000 in fiscal year 2010 ranking 61st out of 100 senators) and the Food Safety Modernization Act, I was unaware of the ire he has drawn from his constituents due to the latter of these two votes.
This morning I attended a local conservative meeting and met Bert Jones who represents Rockingham Co. NC. in the NC General assembly as well as a couple of county commissioners. Amid the back and fourth of conversation Ricard Burr's name was brought up. The disappointment among the group in his record was thick and quickly coalesced in words. Three, perhaps four individuals, Burr's base, vowed not to support him with their vote again. High on their list of complaints was his support for the Food Safety Moderization Act. No mention was made of a press favorite; Burr's DADT vote. Ricard Burr defended his vote on the Food Safety Modernization Act on his site:
“Our nation’s food safety system was designed over a century ago and was appropriate for a world in which most of our food was grown and processed domestically. I voted in support of S. 510 today because I believe it is important that we modernize and update our approach to food safety to address issues that stem from our increasingly global food supply. After months of discussion and debate, I am confident the final version will work for North Carolina and will protect small processors and farms.” – U.S. Senator Richard Burr
This sounds too similar to the arguments put forth by statists when encumbered by our Constitution's government limiting framework. The Constitution is old, they say, and we should accept the fact that only a "living and breathing" Constitution can appropriately reflect our nation's modern needs.
To support the Food Safety Modernization Act one must accept the arguments of the statists to find constitutional muster in this bill where none exists.
Richard Burr did just that with his support for the Food Safety Modernization Act. He grew the federal government at the loss of NC state power and individual liberty.
Richard Burr -- RINO.
out
Individual liberty to have bloody diarrhea or cause someone else to have kidney failure because you want the right to put profits over safety?
ReplyDeleteExactly.
ReplyDeleteLiberty requires good judgment or one suffers the cost of that poor judgment.
Unfortunately some are in the business of giving up the liberty of others and growing bureaucracy in the service of idiots.
As for the false argument of "profit over safety", anyone not hindered by a government education understands that there is no profit to be made from customers that do not return.
The fact is the issue you raise is as false as the ones pointed to by those who support net neutrality.
We do not need to regulate problems that exist only in the minds of those who wish only to control.