Posted on Oct 22, 2015
Pork back on prison menus following questionable and costly survey to have it removed. Defeating executive action?
1.57K
20
9
4
4
0
The Bureau of Prisons on Friday moved to put pork back on the menu at federal prisons nationwide after Sen. Chuck Grassley raised questions about the lack of transparency and financial mismanagement behind the original decision to remove the other white meat from prison cafeterias.
In a letter sent Thursday to the Bureau Director Charles Samuels Jr., Mr. Grassley, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, expressed concern over the “ham-handed” decision to remove economical pork products from prison menus after tax dollars were used to conduct a survey of inmates’ food preferences.
“Pork is largely a product of the United States that provides tremendous economic benefit to the country along with being an economical food,” Mr. Grassley, Iowa Republican, said in a statement. “For that reason alone, it doesn’t make sense to eliminate it from prison meals, but to spend taxpayer dollars surveying prisoners about what they did or didn’t like about the meals they were being served seems completely backwards.”
The decision to remove pork from prison menus was made several months ago, but it only became publicly known at the beginning of the fiscal year, Mr. Grassley wrote in his letter.
A spokesman for the Bureau told Mr. Grassley that the decision was made based on a survey of prisoners’ food preferences that reflected pork has been the “lowest-rated food” by inmates for several years and because pork products were too expensive to provide.
In his letter, Mr. Grassley argued that by feeding inmates pork, the bureau is benefiting the American economy because most pork products are produced in the U.S., while other proteins are more likely to be imported.
“The pork industry is responsible for 547,800 jobs, which creates $22.3 billion in personal incomes and contributes $39 billion to the gross domestic product. The United States is the world’s largest exporter of pork, and the third largest producer of pork. This unprecedented decision to remove pork from all federal prisons will have consequences on the livelihoods of American citizens who work in the pork industry,” Mr. Grassley wrote.
Although the decision was ultimately reversed, Mr. Grassley said there are still questions that need to be answered to clear up transparency concerns.
“I appreciate the quick decision after my letter to the bureau to keep pork products on prison menus. That’s good news for the American economy. But, there are still questions about how the original determination was made and the cost of conducting the surveys. None of that’s been answered, and it ought to be,” Mr. Grassley said in a statement.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/17/pork-back-on-prison-menus-following-questionable-a/
This article raises some interesting questions. One, was the inmate survey really unbiased? Two, how many tax dollars were wasted conducting said survey?
In a letter sent Thursday to the Bureau Director Charles Samuels Jr., Mr. Grassley, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, expressed concern over the “ham-handed” decision to remove economical pork products from prison menus after tax dollars were used to conduct a survey of inmates’ food preferences.
“Pork is largely a product of the United States that provides tremendous economic benefit to the country along with being an economical food,” Mr. Grassley, Iowa Republican, said in a statement. “For that reason alone, it doesn’t make sense to eliminate it from prison meals, but to spend taxpayer dollars surveying prisoners about what they did or didn’t like about the meals they were being served seems completely backwards.”
The decision to remove pork from prison menus was made several months ago, but it only became publicly known at the beginning of the fiscal year, Mr. Grassley wrote in his letter.
A spokesman for the Bureau told Mr. Grassley that the decision was made based on a survey of prisoners’ food preferences that reflected pork has been the “lowest-rated food” by inmates for several years and because pork products were too expensive to provide.
In his letter, Mr. Grassley argued that by feeding inmates pork, the bureau is benefiting the American economy because most pork products are produced in the U.S., while other proteins are more likely to be imported.
“The pork industry is responsible for 547,800 jobs, which creates $22.3 billion in personal incomes and contributes $39 billion to the gross domestic product. The United States is the world’s largest exporter of pork, and the third largest producer of pork. This unprecedented decision to remove pork from all federal prisons will have consequences on the livelihoods of American citizens who work in the pork industry,” Mr. Grassley wrote.
Although the decision was ultimately reversed, Mr. Grassley said there are still questions that need to be answered to clear up transparency concerns.
“I appreciate the quick decision after my letter to the bureau to keep pork products on prison menus. That’s good news for the American economy. But, there are still questions about how the original determination was made and the cost of conducting the surveys. None of that’s been answered, and it ought to be,” Mr. Grassley said in a statement.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/17/pork-back-on-prison-menus-following-questionable-a/
This article raises some interesting questions. One, was the inmate survey really unbiased? Two, how many tax dollars were wasted conducting said survey?
Posted in these groups: 
Politics
Politics
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 5
5
5
0
Sounds to me like some petty bureaucrats are not getting their way after all! :-)
(5)
(0)
2
2
0
Pork is a healthy meat. If you're in prison you must have done something wrong as you were convicted by a jury of your peers. As far as I'm concerned you eat would you get or you don't eat
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
This administration is the least transparent that I can remember and older veterans who support this kind of nonsense have lost or never had a historical perspective and this is indeed Islamic incrementalism. I imagine that these surveys could have been worded to achieve an intended result, namely not to offend a certain minority segment of our world. PO1 John Miller GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google