As the Republican-led House settles into their Washington duties, topics such as the 2012 Farm Bill are coming into discussion. Since the November elections, several changes have occurred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry that are sure to have an impact on the provisions of the 2012 Farm Bill. For starters, as previously expected, Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) took over as Chair, and Pat Roberts (R-KS) took over as the Ranking Member. Stabenow has a strong background in agricultural, as her first bill as a member of the House was the Wheat and Barley Protection Act of 1997. Roberts also has a strong agricultural background, with a particular focus on wheat production. John Boozeman (R-AR) and John Hoeven (R-ND) also joined the committee. Hoeven’s assignment will allow North Dakota to join Iowa and Nebraska, two of the largest producers of corn and soybeans, in having two members on the committee. Several changes have been made to the House Agriculture Committee as well, including Frank Lucas (R-OK) becoming chairman. In the past, Lucas has been a strong supporter of safety net programs, as well as conservation programs aimed at helping farmers maintain their land.
Issues sure to influence the construction of the 2012 Farm Bill include budget allocations, farming subsidies, and the Brazilian cotton conflict. Obviously, with Congress on a mission to cut spending, agricultural subsidies, commodity programs, environmental programs, and crop insurance programs are in danger of reduction. Tara Smith, director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation stated; “38 programs in the 2008 Farm Bill have absolutely no budget. If we want to continue those programs…money will have to be taken from someone else to do it” (Smith). In fact, these 38 programs would require about $9 billion in funding; a large sum which will be hard to squeeze from other programs. In addition, Rich Pottorff, chief economist and Washington editor of Doane Agricultural Services reminded us that; “budget issues totaling about $4.5 billion were sidestepped in the 2008 Farm Bill by shifting the timing of payments for some programs, and Congress won’t be able to do that again” (Pottorff ). All of this comes at a time when farming subsidies are surfacing as a popular choice for budget cuts. Many argue they are a financial burden American taxpayers can do without, claiming they only benefit the large-scale farms that don’t need the assistance or are spent on lands no longer used for farming.
As for problems abroad, in 2009, the WTO approved a Brazilian ban on U.S. cotton after Brazil’s claim that U.S. cotton subsidies were illegal under WTO guidelines. U.S. negotiators agreed to pay the Brazilian government $147 million on an annual basis to what is now called the Brazilian Cotton Farmers Fund. In light of the agreement, the Brazilian government agreed to drop all trade sanctions against various U.S. industries. Bringing our cotton policies into compliance will surely be addressed in the new Farm Bill, as the United States surely cannot afford to waste $147 million a year.
Unfortunately, the new Farm Bill cannot be constructed by crossing out the numbers from the old 2008 bill and replacing them with new figures. New Committee members and a new political environment, both domestically and abroad, are certain to have a large impact on devising and passing the new 2012 Farm Bill. With the juggernaut being created by the Obama Administration’s call for system-wide program cuts and the newly elected House of Representatives demanding fiscal restraint, the next farm bill will have to either very creative or very skinny.
Pottorff, Rich. “Budget Problems Confront 2012 Farm Bill.” 22 September 2010. Web.
31 January 2011. http://www.agnetwork.com/Budget-Problems-Confront-2012-Farm-Bill/2010-09-22/Article.aspx?oid=1243898&fid=AN-LATEST_NEWS
Smith, Tara. “Budget Concerns will Overshadow 2012 Farm Bill.” 24 January 2011. Web.
28 January 2011. http://deltafarmpress.com/government/budget-concerns-will-overshadow-2012-farm-bill
Grace Boatright
National Grange Program Assitant
Monday, January 31, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Subsidize or Starve?
The new vow taken by Congress to cut billions from the federal budget has generated some very different responses around Washington. Many believe that reducing government spending when unemployment is at 9.4% and the economy still remains rocky would be counterproductive to the goal of nursing the country to fiscal health. During these debates, an often overlooked expense has suddenly resurfaced: farming subsidies. A recent New York Times article entitled “Here’s an Easy One,” suggested these subsidies are an obvious and “easy” source for cutting spending. The article; however, failed to address the many problems that could arise should this specific spending reduction take place.
Some of the various arguments against the continuance of farming subsidies include that they are ineffective, waste taxpayer money, and only benefit the large-scale farms that don’t necessarily need the assistance. However, there is a larger aspect to this debate and one that deserves our attention as American consumers of farming products. For starters, this added support for commodity pricing shields against drastic market swings due to unforeseen events. More than other investment securities, commodities such as corn and cotton are subject to the mood swings of both investors and Mother Nature, as are the farmers that grow them. A rapid drop in the price of a commodity could devastate the livelihoods of those that produce them, throwing many growers into bankruptcy, forcing them off their land, and thus leaving farmland vulnerable to further extinction. Consequently, should that circumstance arise, our food supply could become dependent on foreign supplier intervention and subject to much higher prices.
Matt Espenshade, Grange member and third generation Pennsylvania dairy farmer, made several valid points regarding the issue; “Most of the Farm Bill programs are nutrition programs, not farm programs; and while there are some programs that need a review, you can not underestimate the impact of USDA conservation programs on improving the environmental quality near farmland. Also, young farmer loan programs have benefited farm start-ups, especially in a time when ag lending is so tough. Is there room for improvement? Sure…but the agricultural economy is the foundation of the rest of the economy. Agriculture is a huge investor into local economies. For example, [in Pennsylvania] of each dollar returned to a dairy farm, 85 percent is spent in the local community. Each dairy cow has an annual economic impact of $13,737.” Should these local farmers lose their subsidies, lose their farms, and have to give up their land, a large contributor to local economies could die out, leaving America’s small towns in jeopardy.
Farming subsidies, while not a perfect system, greatly contribute to the livelihood and economic wellbeing of local communities and the nation at large. The price stabilization they provide ensure stable prices for commodities such as corn, rice, and other consumable goods frequently purchased by the general public. So unless the public would enjoy paying $4 for a gallon of milk one day and $12 the next, some form of farming subsidies should remain in place.
Grace Boatright
National Grange Program Assistant
Some of the various arguments against the continuance of farming subsidies include that they are ineffective, waste taxpayer money, and only benefit the large-scale farms that don’t necessarily need the assistance. However, there is a larger aspect to this debate and one that deserves our attention as American consumers of farming products. For starters, this added support for commodity pricing shields against drastic market swings due to unforeseen events. More than other investment securities, commodities such as corn and cotton are subject to the mood swings of both investors and Mother Nature, as are the farmers that grow them. A rapid drop in the price of a commodity could devastate the livelihoods of those that produce them, throwing many growers into bankruptcy, forcing them off their land, and thus leaving farmland vulnerable to further extinction. Consequently, should that circumstance arise, our food supply could become dependent on foreign supplier intervention and subject to much higher prices.
Matt Espenshade, Grange member and third generation Pennsylvania dairy farmer, made several valid points regarding the issue; “Most of the Farm Bill programs are nutrition programs, not farm programs; and while there are some programs that need a review, you can not underestimate the impact of USDA conservation programs on improving the environmental quality near farmland. Also, young farmer loan programs have benefited farm start-ups, especially in a time when ag lending is so tough. Is there room for improvement? Sure…but the agricultural economy is the foundation of the rest of the economy. Agriculture is a huge investor into local economies. For example, [in Pennsylvania] of each dollar returned to a dairy farm, 85 percent is spent in the local community. Each dairy cow has an annual economic impact of $13,737.” Should these local farmers lose their subsidies, lose their farms, and have to give up their land, a large contributor to local economies could die out, leaving America’s small towns in jeopardy.
Farming subsidies, while not a perfect system, greatly contribute to the livelihood and economic wellbeing of local communities and the nation at large. The price stabilization they provide ensure stable prices for commodities such as corn, rice, and other consumable goods frequently purchased by the general public. So unless the public would enjoy paying $4 for a gallon of milk one day and $12 the next, some form of farming subsidies should remain in place.
Grace Boatright
National Grange Program Assistant
Friday, January 14, 2011
White House Wakes on Tariffs and Trucks
In March of 2009, the Mexican Economy Secretary issued a press release increasing tariffs on 89 U.S. exported products. Silence from the White House. A year and a half passes and now Congress is in recess and members are running for re-election in their home districts, when the Mexican Economy Secretary issues a press release increasing tariffs on an additional 10 U.S. products. The Mexican government is sending a reminder.
The message was heard loud and clear to all of the trade associations representing the growers and producers of the 99 listed products, even if the White House couldn’t hear it over the victory cries of their recently passed Healthcare overhaul. To the frustrated producers trying to get their goods to market in an already anemic economy, this meant jobs and for some, a huge haircut to the razor thin profit margin they operate under.
The bad trade blood stemmed over part of NAFTA, which ensured that Mexican Trucks could have access to U.S. roads, and the expiration of a pilot program which the trucks were operating under. In 2009, President Obama let this expire, and thus prohibited Mexican Trucks access to deliver goods across the border. Although the Mexican government requested the situation be addressed as a breach of NAFTA, the White House and the Department of Transportation was silent. Probably not so surprising considering the Teamsters Union had bent their ear and testified that Armageddon would approach and drug cartels would inherit the U.S., should they negotiate with Mexico.
This week the White House has broken its silence on the issue and has extended an olive branch to Mexico to reopen negotiations. Secretary LaHood is finally engaged and taking action and the producers are waiting with baited breath.
It has been almost two years since the first round of Mexican tariffs were announced. The estimated value of these import tariffs is about $2 billion. Which makes me wonder how many weeks of wages would $2 billion pay for? You have to assume that each private company in each sector of these 99 products had to lay off workers if their tariffs increased astronomically and the percentage of exports dropped by, in some cases 25%. The apple industry alone exports ¼ of all U.S.-grown apples to Mexico. If the White House had made it a priority to negotiate a treaty with Mexico a year ago, would 13 weeks of unemployment insurance, really be so necessary? Probably not if you worked in the production of any of 89, I mean 99 products, caught in the crosshairs.
Nicole Palya Wood
Legislative Director
The message was heard loud and clear to all of the trade associations representing the growers and producers of the 99 listed products, even if the White House couldn’t hear it over the victory cries of their recently passed Healthcare overhaul. To the frustrated producers trying to get their goods to market in an already anemic economy, this meant jobs and for some, a huge haircut to the razor thin profit margin they operate under.
The bad trade blood stemmed over part of NAFTA, which ensured that Mexican Trucks could have access to U.S. roads, and the expiration of a pilot program which the trucks were operating under. In 2009, President Obama let this expire, and thus prohibited Mexican Trucks access to deliver goods across the border. Although the Mexican government requested the situation be addressed as a breach of NAFTA, the White House and the Department of Transportation was silent. Probably not so surprising considering the Teamsters Union had bent their ear and testified that Armageddon would approach and drug cartels would inherit the U.S., should they negotiate with Mexico.
This week the White House has broken its silence on the issue and has extended an olive branch to Mexico to reopen negotiations. Secretary LaHood is finally engaged and taking action and the producers are waiting with baited breath.
It has been almost two years since the first round of Mexican tariffs were announced. The estimated value of these import tariffs is about $2 billion. Which makes me wonder how many weeks of wages would $2 billion pay for? You have to assume that each private company in each sector of these 99 products had to lay off workers if their tariffs increased astronomically and the percentage of exports dropped by, in some cases 25%. The apple industry alone exports ¼ of all U.S.-grown apples to Mexico. If the White House had made it a priority to negotiate a treaty with Mexico a year ago, would 13 weeks of unemployment insurance, really be so necessary? Probably not if you worked in the production of any of 89, I mean 99 products, caught in the crosshairs.
Nicole Palya Wood
Legislative Director
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Pointing Fingers
On December 8, 1980, Mark David Chapman shot John Lennon 4 times with a 38 special revolver. In the moments following the event, Chapman removed a copy of J.D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye from his pocket, sat down on the curb outside the Dakota, and calmly read while waiting for police to arrive. Now, I’ve read numerous stories about the days following, and have even received personal accounts from those who can vividly recall learning of the news. What I do not recall; however, is reading of any viable source placing blame for John Lennon’s death on J.D. Salinger. I’m sure had anyone done such, they would have been ridiculed without mercy.
However, that was over thirty years ago now, and we have since entered a new environment of legalities, politics, and media. Saturday’s shooting in Arizona was tragic, both for the loss of human lives and for the fact that many have taken this occasion to voice their distaste of some in the political arena. Paul Krugman, a New York Times reporter, wrote in his Sunday article that the “toxic rhetoric” provided by the Right inevitably set the stage for the tragedy that occurred. Further, he proclaimed; “You could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies [that a violent occasion like the Oklahoma City incident] was ready to happen again." MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann stated; "If Sharon Angle, who spoke of Second Amendment remedies does not repudiate that remark and urge her supporters to think anew and again of the terrible reality of what her words implied, she must be repudiated by her supporters in Nevada.” Markos Moulitsas, founder of the DailyKos, tweeted; "Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin." The list goes on and on.
I’m rarely surprised by the lack of decorum, civility, and common sense displayed by the media, and those in it, but this has crossed a line I thought far ahead on the path to irrationality. These individuals seem to be missing the larger picture here: six lives were lost, including that of a 9-year-old girl, surely too young to have understood the media frenzy that took place after her death. Consequently, many have retaliated in response to these awful statements and accusations, including President Obama. Wednesday he encouraged that we not let this tragic event become “one more occasion to turn on one another.” Rather, he urged that we speak “in a way that heals,” and engage in debate “worthy of those we have lost.” Christina Green, the youngest of those we have lost, will be remembered today at her funeral, held at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton in Tucson.
Those who have participated in the ruthless political rhetoric following this tragic event should be ashamed of themselves. Blaming Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and other conservative commentators for the actions taken by one disturbed individual is a misplaced outburst of anger at having suddenly lost their political clout, and low blows such as the aforementioned is no way to regain the respect of American voters. I personally attended the Glen Beck rally in August, full of Tea Party members and those of the so-called “toxic rhetoric” responsible for the Tucson shooting, and I can assure each of you that these individuals are no more to blame for the deaths of Christina Green and John M. Roll than J.D. Salinger is for the death of John Lennon.
Grace Boatright
National Grange Program Assistant
However, that was over thirty years ago now, and we have since entered a new environment of legalities, politics, and media. Saturday’s shooting in Arizona was tragic, both for the loss of human lives and for the fact that many have taken this occasion to voice their distaste of some in the political arena. Paul Krugman, a New York Times reporter, wrote in his Sunday article that the “toxic rhetoric” provided by the Right inevitably set the stage for the tragedy that occurred. Further, he proclaimed; “You could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies [that a violent occasion like the Oklahoma City incident] was ready to happen again." MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann stated; "If Sharon Angle, who spoke of Second Amendment remedies does not repudiate that remark and urge her supporters to think anew and again of the terrible reality of what her words implied, she must be repudiated by her supporters in Nevada.” Markos Moulitsas, founder of the DailyKos, tweeted; "Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin." The list goes on and on.
I’m rarely surprised by the lack of decorum, civility, and common sense displayed by the media, and those in it, but this has crossed a line I thought far ahead on the path to irrationality. These individuals seem to be missing the larger picture here: six lives were lost, including that of a 9-year-old girl, surely too young to have understood the media frenzy that took place after her death. Consequently, many have retaliated in response to these awful statements and accusations, including President Obama. Wednesday he encouraged that we not let this tragic event become “one more occasion to turn on one another.” Rather, he urged that we speak “in a way that heals,” and engage in debate “worthy of those we have lost.” Christina Green, the youngest of those we have lost, will be remembered today at her funeral, held at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton in Tucson.
Those who have participated in the ruthless political rhetoric following this tragic event should be ashamed of themselves. Blaming Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and other conservative commentators for the actions taken by one disturbed individual is a misplaced outburst of anger at having suddenly lost their political clout, and low blows such as the aforementioned is no way to regain the respect of American voters. I personally attended the Glen Beck rally in August, full of Tea Party members and those of the so-called “toxic rhetoric” responsible for the Tucson shooting, and I can assure each of you that these individuals are no more to blame for the deaths of Christina Green and John M. Roll than J.D. Salinger is for the death of John Lennon.
Grace Boatright
National Grange Program Assistant
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
A Prophecy, A New Year
In 1948, the National Grange established its National Grange Youth program. With it, they formalized what had been happening since the beginning of the Grange, the inclusion of youth events and youth leadership. With the start of the new year, many Granges and departments are setting their plan of work.
When I sit down to review a plan of work for a Grange activity, I can’t help but think of a passage from “The Grange-Friend of the Farmer” called A Prophecy.
It reads, “The question has been asked, ‘How long will the Grange live?’ I believe it will live as long as it continues to serve the welfare of agriculture and the nation. Whenever it becomes ingrown and selfish, and the members look on it only as a means of bringing them pleasure, entertainment or profit, it will fade away.
“But to those who find their pleasure in doing something for the common good, the Grange provides an instrument both effective and satisfying. Through it we can jointly find our entertainment and our pleasure in service, while at the same time we can advance the interests of our neighbors and ourselves in the fields of health, education, business and in almost limitless ways. Through the Grange we have an opportunity to give, and the more we give, the more we gain.” (page 430)
This passage serves as a reminder to both Grange youth as well as all Grangers that the responsibility to grow and strengthen this organization belongs to all of us.
As Grange Youth Departments across this country begin their re-organization, this is a good time to evaluate our purpose and mission. What activities are slated for this year? How do they benefit our communities, members? Is our investment into our youth and young adults helping to grow as leaders and to make an impact to solve issues?
I have often talked about the desire of Grange Youth and Young Adults wanting to make a difference. These youth can serve as leaders within their subordinate, Pomona Granges. Youth can pen resolutions and stand ready to meet with legislators. They search for ways to improve their community. And while this is “work” there is no reason it can not be fun as well as beneficial.
As you plan for 2011, are you planning to serve? How do Grange youth play into that plan?
Charlene Shupp Espenshade,
National Grange Youth Director
When I sit down to review a plan of work for a Grange activity, I can’t help but think of a passage from “The Grange-Friend of the Farmer” called A Prophecy.
It reads, “The question has been asked, ‘How long will the Grange live?’ I believe it will live as long as it continues to serve the welfare of agriculture and the nation. Whenever it becomes ingrown and selfish, and the members look on it only as a means of bringing them pleasure, entertainment or profit, it will fade away.
“But to those who find their pleasure in doing something for the common good, the Grange provides an instrument both effective and satisfying. Through it we can jointly find our entertainment and our pleasure in service, while at the same time we can advance the interests of our neighbors and ourselves in the fields of health, education, business and in almost limitless ways. Through the Grange we have an opportunity to give, and the more we give, the more we gain.” (page 430)
This passage serves as a reminder to both Grange youth as well as all Grangers that the responsibility to grow and strengthen this organization belongs to all of us.
As Grange Youth Departments across this country begin their re-organization, this is a good time to evaluate our purpose and mission. What activities are slated for this year? How do they benefit our communities, members? Is our investment into our youth and young adults helping to grow as leaders and to make an impact to solve issues?
I have often talked about the desire of Grange Youth and Young Adults wanting to make a difference. These youth can serve as leaders within their subordinate, Pomona Granges. Youth can pen resolutions and stand ready to meet with legislators. They search for ways to improve their community. And while this is “work” there is no reason it can not be fun as well as beneficial.
As you plan for 2011, are you planning to serve? How do Grange youth play into that plan?
Charlene Shupp Espenshade,
National Grange Youth Director
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Who Makes the Rules Anyway?
Humble and subservient are never the adjectives used to describe Congress and its members, at least not anymore. Once upon a time, men like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson sat down to draft a document purposely inflicting rules and restrictions on the government yet to be established. In fact, limitations on government are precisely the foundation of democracy. Unfortunately, as time went on, government somehow obtained more power and the opinion of the public slowly became less influential. This is a problem of unspeakable proportions. After all, when the opinions of the governed mean nothing to the government, that’s called socialism. Until November 2nd of last year (last year sounds so long ago doesn’t it?) the American public was headed in that very direction. However, there is a new light at the end of this dreary tunnel, and it will soon shed itself on the 112th Congress.
The day Congress elects John Boehner to Speaker of the House, members will ultimately have to agree upon House Resolution 5; the package containing the rules by which they will abide. Imagine that- Congress establishing rules for itself. Yet, the new rules package, if agreed upon and properly implemented, could dramatically change the way Washington conducts its business. Included in the provisions are numerous restrictions that would help to restore economic responsibility, transparency, and a less intrusive government; founding principles much needed to rebuild the health and prosperity of our nation.
One such measure would require that all committee votes be made available online and reports be drafted more frequently regarding committee activities. Consequently, numerous committees will be under new chairmanships, bringing new ideas to an area of politics long plagued with bureaucracy and standstill. Just to name a few, Paul Ryan of the Budget Committee, Dave Camp of Ways and Means, Fred Upton of Energy and Commerce, and Spencer Bachus of Financial Services will all be new to their roles as chairmen. Another measure related to committees, and a rather victorious one, would be the reinstatement of term limits for chairmen. This would help prevent the often abused powers that come from the same men holding the same positions for years and years.
Moving on, other provisions contained in House Res. 5 include a rule that all bills be made available online for at least 72 hours before they are voted on. As common sense as this seems, it has been a frequent occurrence for 500-page bills to be filed only hours before the issue is to be heard on the floor. In fact, had this restriction been in place the whole time, the Healthcare Bill would easily been ruled out of order. Further, any entitlement increasing deficit spending by $5 billion or more in a 10-year period would be banned. And finally, the package also allows for highway spending to be reduced should the revenues on the gasoline tax begin to decline.
All of the aforementioned rules, and several others, will help to bring about a new and productive political environment in the District of Columbia. For too long legislators have taken liberties without consent of the public, and the mess in which we’ve found ourselves is the end result of such practices. Not anymore. And although I’m hesitant to become too optimistic about the future of government, the measures already taken by the 112th Congress are at least a giant step in the right direction. Hopefully, Congress will get the message sent by the public in November and continue their efforts on this most beneficial and constructive path.
Grace Boatright
National Grange Program Assistant
The day Congress elects John Boehner to Speaker of the House, members will ultimately have to agree upon House Resolution 5; the package containing the rules by which they will abide. Imagine that- Congress establishing rules for itself. Yet, the new rules package, if agreed upon and properly implemented, could dramatically change the way Washington conducts its business. Included in the provisions are numerous restrictions that would help to restore economic responsibility, transparency, and a less intrusive government; founding principles much needed to rebuild the health and prosperity of our nation.
One such measure would require that all committee votes be made available online and reports be drafted more frequently regarding committee activities. Consequently, numerous committees will be under new chairmanships, bringing new ideas to an area of politics long plagued with bureaucracy and standstill. Just to name a few, Paul Ryan of the Budget Committee, Dave Camp of Ways and Means, Fred Upton of Energy and Commerce, and Spencer Bachus of Financial Services will all be new to their roles as chairmen. Another measure related to committees, and a rather victorious one, would be the reinstatement of term limits for chairmen. This would help prevent the often abused powers that come from the same men holding the same positions for years and years.
Moving on, other provisions contained in House Res. 5 include a rule that all bills be made available online for at least 72 hours before they are voted on. As common sense as this seems, it has been a frequent occurrence for 500-page bills to be filed only hours before the issue is to be heard on the floor. In fact, had this restriction been in place the whole time, the Healthcare Bill would easily been ruled out of order. Further, any entitlement increasing deficit spending by $5 billion or more in a 10-year period would be banned. And finally, the package also allows for highway spending to be reduced should the revenues on the gasoline tax begin to decline.
All of the aforementioned rules, and several others, will help to bring about a new and productive political environment in the District of Columbia. For too long legislators have taken liberties without consent of the public, and the mess in which we’ve found ourselves is the end result of such practices. Not anymore. And although I’m hesitant to become too optimistic about the future of government, the measures already taken by the 112th Congress are at least a giant step in the right direction. Hopefully, Congress will get the message sent by the public in November and continue their efforts on this most beneficial and constructive path.
Grace Boatright
National Grange Program Assistant
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)