The Second District: Food Stamps
In George Holding’s race with Renee Ellmers there’re two issues that no one’s talked much about and which haven’t received a lot of attention. But they should.
The first, and most important, more or less defines the difference between George Holding and Renee Ellmers. And the political sleight of hand going on in this election.
Ellmers has attacked Holding by saying in Congress he voted against farmers. She based her charge on the fact George Holding voted against the ‘Farm Bill’ and, at first blush, that sounds pretty bad. But like a lot of things in politics it’s not quite what it seems.
In fact, Ellmers is parroting a well used Washington Insider line to cover up a key fact – that 80% of the spending in the ‘Farm Bill’ had nothing to do with farming. It went to pay for Food Stamps.
When the so-called ‘Farm Bill’ first came up in the House George Holding voted to require workfare (requiring people on Food Stamps to work for their benefits) and drug testing and he voted to cut Food Stamp spending. (Ellmers, by the way, voted for the same bill.)
The bill then went over to the Senate and when it came back it had been changed – a lot. The Senate had increased Food Stamp spending to $756 billion, done away with the workfare requirement and done away with drug testing.
And that’s where George Holding and Renee Ellmers parted company.
Ellmers voted for the bill and Holding voted against it. And now, to cover her tracks, Ellmers is saying Holding opposes farmers because he voted against more Food Stamp spending.
In a poll we asked voters about Ellmers’ attack and, when they were given the facts, voters agreed with Holding (77%) vs. Ellmers (8.5%).
Ellmers’ vote landed her on the wrong side of the issue and now she’s using a bit of political double talk to cover her tracks.
The second issue is illegal immigration: 88% of the Republican Primary voters in the Second District disapprove of President Obama’s Executive Orders granting amnesty to illegal immigrants.
Republicans in the House tried to use the ‘power of the purse’ to stop those Executive Orders – by defunding them. When that bill (to defund the President’s Executive Orders) came to a vote in the House only seven Republicans voted against it. And Renee Ellmers was one of the seven.
Their votes on Food Stamp spending and illegal immigration are clear examples of differences between Renee Ellmers and George Holding. And there needs to be a debate during this campaign about those two issues. But it hasn’t happened yet.
The Second District: Food Stamps
In George Holding’s race with Renee Ellmers there’re two issues that no one’s talked much about and which haven’t received a lot of attention. But they should.
The first, and most important, more or less defines the difference between George Holding and Renee Ellmers. And the political sleight of hand going on in this election.
Ellmers has attacked Holding by saying in Congress he voted against farmers. She based her charge on the fact George Holding voted against the ‘Farm Bill’ and, at first blush, that sounds pretty bad. But like a lot of things in politics it’s not quite what it seems.
In fact, Ellmers is parroting a well used Washington Insider line to cover up a key fact – that 80% of the spending in the ‘Farm Bill’ had nothing to do with farming. It went to pay for Food Stamps.
When the so-called ‘Farm Bill’ first came up in the House George Holding voted to require workfare (requiring people on Food Stamps to work for their benefits) and drug testing and he voted to cut Food Stamp spending. (Ellmers, by the way, voted for the same bill.)
The bill then went over to the Senate and when it came back it had been changed – a lot. The Senate had increased Food Stamp spending to $756 billion, done away with the workfare requirement and done away with drug testing.
And that’s where George Holding and Renee Ellmers parted company.
Ellmers voted for the bill and Holding voted against it. And now, to cover her tracks, Ellmers is saying Holding opposes farmers because he voted against more Food Stamp spending.
In a poll we asked voters about Ellmers’ attack and, when they were given the facts, voters agreed with Holding (77%) vs. Ellmers (8.5%).
Ellmers’ vote landed her on the wrong side of the issue and now she’s using a bit of political double talk to cover her tracks.
The second issue is illegal immigration: 88% of the Republican Primary voters in the Second District disapprove of President Obama’s Executive Orders granting amnesty to illegal immigrants.
Republicans in the House tried to use the ‘power of the purse’ to stop those Executive Orders – by defunding them. When that bill (to defund the President’s Executive Orders) came to a vote in the House only seven Republicans voted against it. And Renee Ellmers was one of the seven.
Their votes on Food Stamp spending and illegal immigration are clear examples of differences between Renee Ellmers and George Holding. And there needs to be a debate during this campaign about those two issues. But it hasn’t happened yet.