I have written about my parting of the way with the Republican party. While egocentric, I admit, I still believe the party changed course more than I did. David Brooks at the NYT offers a similar view.
Over the past few decades, the Republican Party has championed a series of reforms designed to devolve power to the individual, through tax cuts, private pensions and medical accounts. The temperamental conservative does not see a nation composed of individuals who should be given maximum liberty to make choices. Instead, the individual is a part of a social organism and thrives only within the attachments to family, community and nation that precede choice.
Therefore, the temperamental conservative values social cohesion alongside individual freedom and worries that too much individualism, too much segmentation, too much tension between races and groups will tear the underlying unity on which all else depends. Without unity, the police are regarded as alien powers, the country will fracture under the strain of war and the economy will be undermined by lack of social trust.
To put it bluntly, over the past several years, the G.O.P. has made ideological choices that offend conservatism’s Burkean roots. This may seem like an airy-fairy thing that does nothing more than provoke a few dissenting columns from William F. Buckley, George F. Will and Andrew Sullivan. But suburban, Midwestern and many business voters are dispositional conservatives more than creedal conservatives. They care about order, prudence and balanced budgets more than transformational leadership and perpetual tax cuts. It is among these groups that G.O.P. support is collapsing.
American conservatism will never be just dispositional conservatism. America is a creedal nation. But American conservatism is only successful when it’s in tension — when the ambition of its creeds is restrained by the caution of its Burkean roots. [More of an excellent op-ed]
There is an atmosphere of loyal dissent that bodes well for the nation, and I think, agriculture as we forge ahead into this new century. The dialog - albeit roughly hewn at present - of debate on the Internet offer real hope for unifying forces. We can speak and be heard. We can read and learn. We can all be present at every event of moment.
The conservative movement has paused long enough before embracing this new idea. And now that they have weighed the possibilities and costs, I think they will recapture their own ideology from reactionary blowhards.
As I follow various sources of information in the farm bill debate, I am struck by the lack of consensus on possible outcomes. For example, some feel Sen. Harkin is over-matched by hardball players like Sen Conrad.
But Conrad is a relentless political operator who never quits. And that’s the pity. Harkin is an idea man with a progressive vision of where U.S. agriculture is going and what the farm bill should look like. But as the weeks drag on and Senate work on the farm bill is delayed, he seems increasingly hemmed in by Conrad’s aggressive tactics and the real politik of Senate dealing making.
He acknowledged as much Tuesday in one of his regular teleconferences with reporters. While he still held out hopes for what he said would be “very modest” reforms of the basic subsidy programs, he twice noted that he was limited by “the art of the possible,” i.e., he can’t move a bill out of his committee without votes from hardline advocates of traditional subsidies. [More]
Meanwhile, the change in leadership at the USDA leaves some unsure where the administration will draw the line in the sand (if any).
* If there is a payment limit for farmers with an average gross income (AGI) of $200,000 that the Bush administration has suggested, or the $1 million limit in the House farm bill, why not pay those farmers up to that point of the limit? Why take an all-or-nothing approach?
"Remember," Conner said, "our approach is $200,000 averaged over three years. So I don't see that as all or nothing. This is a sustained person who is in the top 2.3 percent of tax filers in America -- of all tax filers. We understand there are boom and bust years, and there is always going to be, so it may not be fair if you just happen to hit a great year, and maybe even marketing even more than one crop in a particular year because of the price situation, that one year would throw a producer out. But if you manage to do that over a period of three years, you are just flat out one of the top income people in the United States of America. As we have said time and time again, we do believe that if you reach a point where you've realized the American dream to the fullest extent, and again, if you're one of the top income earners in America, you need to graduate. These programs today are income support programs." [More by ProFarmer subscription]
Meanwhile, back at the farm, incandescent prices could provide an interesting backdrop for any possible floor debate in the Senate. I doubt that will occur, but I do think the bizarre funding proposals (FICA exemptions?) may struggle to pass muster.
I also think a Doha agreement would put immense pressure on even a finished farm bill. Too many other sectors with political goals of their own would have to subordinate their interests to agriculture to pass up the trade benefits.
As always, the White House is a real wild card. This president looks veto-itchy to me.
To the surprise of this observer, President Bush appears to be dead serious about vetoing more than a few funding bills. A key test will be the expansion of health insurance for children.
Bush is trying to establish that he's a fiscal conservative after overseeing a sharp rise in the deficit, said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois.
"I think he has picked the wrong issues," Durbin said. "If he wants to fight over children's health insurance, I'm sorry but we're ready."
But Bush said lawmakers "are putting health coverage for poor children at risk so they can score political points in Washington." He and his aides have threatened vetoes on several other matters as well, including House representation for the District of Columbia and subsidized insurance against terrorist acts.
Bush also has threatened to veto nine of the 12 appropriations bills that would fund the government for the fiscal year beginning October 1. [More]
Many of these vetoes are targeting bills near and dear to the farm lobby - like WRDA.
The veto threat came as the House prepared to take up the bill, loaded with $5 billion in new drinking water and wastewater treatment plants proposed by Senate and House negotiators.
"Indeed, it seems a $14 billion Senate bill went into a conference with the House's $15 billion bill and somehow a bill emerged costing approximately $20 billion," complained Rob Portman, the White House budget director, and John Paul Woodley, Jr., the Army's assistant secretary of civil works.
Because the bill's authorization now "significantly exceeds the cost of either the House or Senate bill and contains other unacceptable provisions ... the president will veto the bill," they wrote to four Senate and House members whose committees oversaw the legislation.
Congress must not increase the Army Corps' already huge backlog of $38 billion in authorized projects by adding new ones for wastewater, drinking water, sewer overflows, waterfront development, transportation and abandoned mines - all of which are "outside of and inappropriate for the mission" of the Army Corps, Portman and Woodley wrote. [More]
Given the sudden resurgence of interest in Doha negotiations, the farm bill is a prime target as well, making the imaginative new funding sources being contemplated by both the House and Senate reasons the White House can force Congress to rethink.
Most of all, the rather stunning new enthusiasm for vetoes after a total of umm, none for six years seems to have flummoxed a Congress who thought they had the upper hand after last fall's elections.
Bush is like Capt. Renault in Casablanca, who feigns shock that there is gambling in Rick's Cafe, said Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist and author of Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. "He's suddenly 'shocked, shocked' to find out there's all this pork-barrel spending in these bills," Bartlett said.
Bush's veto strategy "is the only card they've really got to play if they are indeed interested in restraining government spending," says Stephen Slivinski, director of budget studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. That has been "an open question" in the past, he added, but now the threats are aimed at "Democratic bills."
"He dislikes Democrats more than he likes big government," Slivinski said. [More]
The veto remains an incredibly powerful tool for the executive branch - and this is an administration that's all about executive power. Recent public relations Iraq victories have reignited his famed stubbornness, it seems.
Most observers still confidently boast "Congress writes the farm bill".
Committed to an open-ended Korean non-solution in Iraq, I sense President Bush wants to mend some fences with potential conservative "library" donors. Hence, this interesting announcement regarding ag subsidies and WTO:
The United States is prepared to negotiate a multilateral trade deal on the basis of a WTO proposal calling for big cuts in agriculture subsidies, a government official said Wednesday.
But a spokeswoman for the office of the US Trade Representative, Sean Spicer, said other countries "must step up to ensure the strongest possible market access outcomes" in agriculture as well as manufacturing and services.
The comments in Washington came after a high-ranking WTO official said in Geneva that US officials had accepted WTO proposals as a basis for negotiations.
"They said they were prepared to negotiate within the range of numbers put forward in the agriculture paper, provided everybody else would work within the same parameters," said the WTO's chief agriculture negotiator, New Zealand ambassador Crawford Falconer.
In July, Falconer published a series of proposals for WTO members which suggested that the United States reduce its agricultural subsidies to between 12.8 to 16.2 billion dollars (9.2 to 11.6 billion euros). [More]
Bush has been savaged by the right for his cave-in on the 2002 Farm Bill, and it could be he will be able to have his way here, if US negotiators can deliver for American service providers and manufacturers. Between administration stalwarts and various other special interest factions, a farm bill veto override would be a tall order.
So, we seem to have another candidate. One who is furiously trying to don the mantle of Ronald Reagan. He presents an interesting problem for farm subsidy fans.
Fred Thompson's record on spending is generally impressive. Aside from a fondness for Tennessee pork, Thompson was a strong proponent of streamlining government and eliminating waste. When he first entered the Senate, he joined a bipartisan group in sponsoring legislation hoping to put an end to corporate welfare. In 1996, he sponsored legislation to institute a biennial budget that would allow time for the Senate to exercise oversight on the spending process. He also often voted for measures to limit spending and against costly government programs. These include:
* Voted for the line-item veto * Voted for the Freedom to Farm Act in 1996, which reduced, and aimed to phase out, farm subsidies while diminishing distortions to the agricultural economy * Sponsored an amendment in 1995 and 1996 against a pay raise for congressional members (though he supported a pay raise in 2002) * Voted for welfare reform * Voted against a 2000 amendment that would provide a prescription drug benefit * Voted against the Farm Security Bill in 2002 that sought to increase agricultural subsidies with market-distorting payments, undoing the progress of the 1996 act * Voted against $2.35 billion in agriculture assistance
Senator Thompson often joined with a minority of his colleagues in voting to strip wasteful projects from the various spending bills. These include:
* 1 of 23 senators to vote for an amendment to eliminate funding for programs carried out by the National Endowment for the Arts * 1 of 29 senators to support eliminating $2 million in construction funds for a Smithsonian Institution storage facility for specimens stored in alcohol * 1 of 26 senators to vote against extending ethanol subsidies * 1 of 31 senators voting to strike a $2.5 million earmark for coral reef mapping off the coast of Hawaii * 1 of 24 senators voting to remove $50 million for the construction and renovation of facilities at the National Animal Research Laboratory in Ames, Iowa [More] [My emphasis]
Thompson strikes me as a political opportunist determined to make the most of having no accomplishments as a public servant: You can't be against what you don't know - and Thompson is a bundle of question marks.
Besides, like Ronald Reagan (the new standard of Presidential stature) he is an actor!!! OMG!!
In order to get Dems to sign off on the farm bill, Speaker Pelosi and her allies threw in quite a handful of goodies - one of which may come back to haunt the farmers who like the current subsidy scheme.
Democratic leaders did it by playing Santa Claus. To representatives from California and other states that don't grow the types of crops that traditionally get federal handouts, they doled out $1.6 billion for specialty crops such as vegetables and nuts. To the Congressional Black Caucus, they handed at least $100 million to help settle discrimination lawsuits by minority farmers. To urban liberals, they gave a needed expansion of the food stamp program. And to Democrats in farm states, they presented a bill that keeps in place all of the trade-distorting subsidies that made the 2002 farm bill a shameful violation of international agreements. [More]
But the real eyebrow-raiser was this bone for labor unions:
The bill is flush with subsidies to produce ethanol, the corn-based alternative fuel that still can't compete on a free-market basis. More ethanol requires more biorefineries. Democrats plan to mandate Davis-Bacon wages for workers building those refineries. With nonunion builders unable to compete on price, each new refinery could cost as much as 35% more. In many rural areas with little or no union activity, this artificially high labor cost could even make the prospect of building an ethanol plant a net loss. [More]
This is no problem if your ethanol plant is already up and running, but bad news for expansion plans.
An interesting poll conducted on young people (18-29) and some stark results.
The problems with the Republican brand among young people run deeper than Bush. Young people are often cynical about politics, but believe in government. By a 68 – 28 percent margin, voters would rather have a bigger government providing more services over a smaller government providing fewer services. Even Republican young people prefer a larger, more generous government (57 – 40 percent for bigger government with more services). Young people adopt views diametrically opposed from the Republican Party on issues as diverse as the war, global warming, gay marriage and, to some extent, illegal immigration as well. In fact, there is not a single issue in this survey where younger voters line up with the Republican Party. [More]
Perhaps those of us who believe in smaller government are the dinosaurs of our time.
The unfolding farm bill drama ratcheted up significantly today as Republicans suddenly showed up and Sec. Johanns issued a mid-level veto threat. The trigger appears to be a poorly disguised tax built into the legislation to fund the general Santa-Claus economics of the House Ag Committee version.
A proposal from Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett would help pay for $4 billion in nutrition and food stamps by taxing U.S. plants of companies owned by firms located overseas. Republicans charge the increase would endanger tax treaties and raise the cost of doing business in the United States. [More]
The conservative Club for Growth interest group is planning to include the vote on the Fairness in Farm and Food Policy amendment in the group's 2007 congressional score card. The Club for Growth calls the bill supported by House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "disastrous." The club will distribute the score card to other members of Congress and the public. [More]
As we learned with former Speakers, control of the gavel counts for about 150 votes on its own. Regardless, this looks like a campaign issue for conservatives either way it goes, if they bother to take a stand. The real wild card is the veto threat. After the vote count on the Kind-Flake amendment, we might know if Pres. Bush has any leverage.
Great - I'm on the road during this whole kerfuffle. I'll be at the Commodity Classic in Maryland tomorrow.
The arch-nemesis of lovable farmers who just want a few billion on subsidies to tide them over - Big Business - has stirred from its loathsome stupor. (I get all carried away with metaphors after a little caffeine).
In the hubbub surrounding the markup, few noticed some important news: The U.S. business community came out for reduced agricultural subsidies.
In a letter to House and Senate leaders, it called on Congress to “enact long-needed reforms” in farm policy that will “create a dynamic opportunity for U.S. trade negotiators to increase the pressure on our trading partners to offer substantial new market access opportunities that would benefit American farmers, manufacturers and services providers.”
It was signed by several of the biggest guns in corporate America, including the Business Roundtable (representing Fortune 500 giants), U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Retail Federation, National Association of Manufacturers and Information Technology Industry Council. [More]
Could it be that Karl Rove once again has a better political sense of the nation than Speaker Pelosi? Like others, I think "farm states" will not be politically decided by the farm bill.
In 2005, a Kellogg Foundation-sponsored poll conducted in Iowa, Kansas and Minnesota found clear preferences for a strict $250,000 cap on farm program payments, which is the proposed cap in the Dorgan-Grassley bill reintroduced two weeks ago. All three states are considered farm states, and both farmers and non-farmers were surveyed. You can find the poll here. A quote from the poll summary:
[By] more than a two-to-one margin (67 percent to 31 percent) voters in these states support limiting direct payments to single farms to no more than $250,000. Interestingly, support is higher among farm income households and Republicans than among voters as a whole.
Since farm income households certainly understand farm programs and their impact, one might assume that their higher support for strict subsidy limits is significant. Not only do voters in these states support strict payment limits, they are willing to take that policy preference into the voting booth:
a majority of voters in each state describe themselves as more likely to support a member who supports limiting direct payments to single farms to no more than $250,000 and at least a third describe themselves as "much more likely" to support such a member. [More]
Lost in all this entertaining excitement is the ground truth that farms like mine are almost past caring. Industrial agriculture will shrug if our $25/A DCP payment shrinks or disappears. And if our "safety net" suddenly looks no bigger than our non-farming neighbor's, maybe we will be slightly more sympathetic to solutions for all of us.
One thing is sure, with all this hoo-hah, negotiating cash rents for 2008 and beyond has become NASCAR-like exciting.
Might President Bush veto a farm bill if it looks like the likely House version?
The Bush administration is signaling that it is prepared to veto the $300 billion farm bill that will probably come before the House of Representatives this week. Bush signed similar legislation in 2002, when his Republicans controlled the House, and he will face pressure to do so again with elections approaching next year. [More]
Hokey smokes, earthlings! While I sorta wistfully imagined him doing the right thing, the reality of it is stunning. Whether the threat can sway anybody is another guess.
Should he follow through, it would signal the cannon is well and truly loose about the deck for the next year and a half, and anything could happen, since he no longer cares about his own party members' political future, especially with them bailing out on Iraq.
What looks like the likely farm bill output for the House has received Speaker Pelosi's blessing. This is not endearing her to her district, but like all Speakers, she knows nobody is going to vote out a Speaker from their own district.
My guess is Rep. Pelosi would throw her own Maltese under a bus to maintain the Democratic majority, and the handful of Democrat freshman in rural districts were not expendable. If you stop and think about it, the only real effort at reform came when Republicans had a large edge in Congress. Stalemate has been very, very good for subsidy fans.
Still, Speaker Pelosi's approach is a clear indication of the one-dimensional image of agriculture. Do farmers vote solely on the basis of how much money we get in the farm bill? (I have never seen evidence of a "farm bloc" vote) Does Iraq not matter to us ? Or health care? Or gay marriage? Or immigration? Would we vote for Lord Voldemort if he came through with doubled loan rates?
Maybe farmers are content to be seen as self-centered simpletons with little interest in affairs beyond the farmgate. That picture does not correlate well with producers I know, but when I think of it, neither do they seem troubled to be viewed that way. Perhaps Ms. Pelosi's cynical arithmetic is right.
As usual, the gold standard coverage of this development is in Jim Wiesemeyer's column at ProFarmer (for which you have to pay - and should) but I'll risk stealing this one nugget that gave me pause.
Payment limitation changes are by far the biggest farm bill achievement in the House farm bill. While farm bill reformists say the alterations did not go far enough and deep enough, changes in payment eligibility (not only for farm program payments, but also for conservation payments), along with the end of triple-entity and a move to direct attribution clearly give this farm bill a reformist label.
Jim and I have a quantum difference on the meaning of the word "reform" but the more I ponder it, eliminating the three-entity rule at least opens the door for future ratcheting down of payment limits. While a very small step, if it is retained by the Senate - which I think very possible - it will force some innovative work-arounds at least by some large operations. [Hint: expect to see more 5 year-olds "materially participating"]
The Senate will have to pass different legislation of course, in order to be seen as contributors, so it may be this proposed legislation is the upper boundary for traditional subsidy recipients.
The one idea for farm bill reform I had thought least likely to survive seems to be the one most in play. Given my keen political instincts and personal record (0-for-4 in contested elections), I should have seen this not coming. Or something like that.
Anyhoo, the idea of real payment limits suddenly has leapt to the forefront as "proof" of sincere reform.
Some specifics:
The limit for DCP's would be umm... raised to $60,000 (What the heck?)
The limit for CCP's would stay at $65,000
The limit in MLG's would be ...eliminated. (OK - I get the joke)
Oh, we are going to take stern action with a handful of millionaires.
All seriousness aside, the idea of any payment limitation language at all is a surprise to me, and perhaps an open invitation for floor amendments - they wouldn't have to change the language, just tweak the numbers. Meanwhile the Senate may have some ideas of their own.
Grassley has been working with Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., on an effort to institute payment limitations in farm commodity programs. "We believe that if the House would include the Grassley-Dorgan payment limit language in their version of the farm bill, it would save close to $700 million," said Grassley. "With the Senate and House trying to find offsets this year, this seems to be a very good step in the right direction, considering the need to find offsets for spending. Our payment limit legislation would not only help find extra money, but it is real reform in the farm program as well." [More]
It cannot be easy trying to make foolproof plans to provide for every little problem on my farm all the way from Washington. It's amazing how much effort they are putting into it. And how little it may matter in the long run.
I have taken the time to re-read most of my posts about the farm bill progress (?) through Congress [Note: you can do like wise by clicking on "farm bill" in the labels below.] The most upbeat spin I can put on them is they are not totally cynical.
But they are not far from it. Despite my efforts to write honestly, this likely is an unfair characterization of events, influenced no doubt by my strong belief farm policy could be so much better. (And at times my concerns about rain - foolish, but a typical farmer trait)
So it struck me hard to read these words from an observer whose work and opinion I admire immensely - Jim Weisemeyer.
Comments: Will Peterson confront the "magic beans" and "monopoly money" charges by detailing where the $17.5 billion to $18 billion from the so-called reserve funds will come from? He has failed to detail the offsets so far and most expect him to be silent again. If all this sounds bewildering, it is. It's no wonder the vast majority of voters are losing faith in their government. The House farm bill process is another sad example of how not to write a major bill.
The question Rep. Peterson should answer: How much funding has Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) agreed to, and where are the offsets coming from? Without answers to those questions, the farm bill process (or whatever you want to call it) is not transparent. Leadership on so many things in Washington is needed -- from both political parties.
Bottom line: If the split-personality farm bills go to the House floor, those seeking multibillion-dollar boosts in funding (food and nutrition, conservation, specialty crops) will likely cause a donnybrook. That is when we may finally get a true, open debate. We haven't had that in the House Ag Committee to date. And the Senate Ag Committee remains a work in non progress. [More - via a reasonable subscription]
I may get into hot water for borrowing rather liberally from subscription-firewalled material, but these thoughts are, I believe profoundly important. Jim rarely expresses even mild judgments of the politicians he chronicles meticulously in his professional writing, let alone lapse into frustration.
I do not suggest he is corroborating my low opinion of recent farm bill (in)action. His information is far purer than mine, but his thoughts do seem to address the growing concern about Americans' alienation from our own government.
How do people think the Democratic Congress is doing after six months? Lousy. But better than the alternative.
It's midyear, and the Democratic Congress is taking a break. Well-deserved? No, say Republicans.
"We are now halfway through the first year of the 110th Congress," Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, said. "And there is no question that the failure on the part of the Democrats in terms of their midterm exam is really a letdown to the expectations of the American people.''
Democratic leaders are inclined to agree. "I'm not happy with Congress, either," Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said.
And the American people? Look at the grades. President Bush is doing terribly -- an average of 30 percent job approval in six recent polls. Congress is doing worse -- 25 percent on the average in five polls. (Poll: Support for Democrats wavering)
Why the low marks? Democrats point to one issue where not much seems to be getting done. "The war in Iraq is dragging down people's confidence in what's going on in this country," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said. [More]
As many have pointed out, this discontent - which strikes me as truly more deeply felt than our usual contempt for politics - is occurring as our economy chugs along briskly. The American Way is to rank financial progress 90% of the score, right? Steve Chapman puts his finger on the reason, I believe.
A major cause of the misperception, though, is President Bush's sagging popularity. It's clear that many people let their discontent with the president color their view of everything. If he is failing to win the war in Iraq or curb illegal immigration, we assume he must also be coming up short on the economy.
The polls suggest that some people won't acknowledge anything good here lest it suggest competence on the part of a president they can't stand. According to a survey by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press, 43 percent of Republicans say the economy is fair or poor, but 79 percent of Democrats take that view. "People are giving partisan responses," says public opinion expert Karlyn Bowman of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. [More - great read]
This rings true for me. It also forces me to reconsider if presidential popularity matters. I have always considered it to be simply news fodder - I mean, it's not like we could oust our leader at any moment by a show of hands. But perhaps there is something to political capital, and we are running a deficit.
Let me hazard a prediction. If farm bill reform of some kind is not enacted (a replay of immigration), it will simply add to the widening chasm between people and government, making any political progress even harder, and fueling a spirit of futility and even despair. The farm bill debate has achieved that level of national prominence and involvement.
This disillusionment, if eventually reflected in economic terms such as consumer spending, will make any recovery all the harder. The connection between business and politics is real, but subject to delays between actions and consequences.
The inability to effect collective change would seem to be good for conservatives, but that presumes we are in a happy place right now. And fewer and fewer citizens seem to feel that way. This creates a real political conundrum. If Americans lose faith in government, no legislation will receive acceptance, because it is the creation of distrusted authors. How then will we address those issues? This is what happened perhaps to immigration reform.
I think that if people did not already have the sense that their country was in some sense slipping away from them -- if they felt secure enough about our country and its direction -- then they would be a lot less inclined to think that illegal immigrants were taking it away from them. But the reason they think their country is slipping away from them need have nothing to do with illegal immigration itself, as opposed to a more general sense that the rules are stacked against them, and no one obeys the laws, and decent people who work hard get screwed. [More]
I have no ready answer. But he urgency to accomplish something has increased. Our national character depends on a hopeful future.
If you visit our capital this summer, take some time to at drive by the Dept. of Agriculture building. It is an enormous edifice and offers a hint of the massive bureaucracy that is sustained by our complex farm policy.
Then consider this idea to umm, downsize this behemoth.
The table shows that these reforms would eliminate 90 percent of the USDA’s budget, saving federal taxpayers $80 billion annually, or about $696 per U.S. household. Under the proposal, the USDA would retain responsibility for animal and plant health inspections, food safety, grain and packing inspections, and conservation activities.
The senators voted, 64 to 35, to invoke cloture, or move to consideration of the bill itself. Since 60 votes are required for cloture, and only 45 voted for cloture two weeks ago, the measure’s supporters were heartened by today’s vote. Had the cloture vote failed today, the bill would have been dead for the foreseeable future.
The Senate’s next step is to consider a batch of amendments, some designed to be easier on illegal immigrants, some meant to be tougher. The amendments’ differing intentions underline the fragility of the coalition behind the bill.
Another make-or-break cloture vote could come before this weekend, and it is by no means certain that those who voted for cloture today will vote for the bill itself. [More]
This could be some of the best work this Congress will do, because you can be sure few of them want to wrestle with this issue. Nonetheless, problems like this are their job and regardless of the outcome, it is encouraging to this observer to see Congress vote for something rather against everything.
Still, along with others, I think I have found an immigration plan that addresses our real problems better.
Another problem, though, was that the Senate bill was worse than it needed to be. On the legal side of the immigration equation, there are easy trade-ups to be had. In fact, even a National Journal columnist with no apparent qualifications could write a better bill.
And what might that look like? Glad you asked.
* First, raise the number of legal immigrants by about 50 percent, to about 1.8 million a year. That meets the economy's demonstrated demand for workers.
* Second, provide pathways to permanence. Bring in these 1.8 million people on temporary visas, say for three to five years, with the promise of permanent legal residency (a green card) if they stay out of trouble, pose no security risk, and work or get a college degree.
* Third, don't micromanage who gets in. Allocate visas using a simple three-way formula that gives about equal weight to family, work, and education: 600,000 family visas for close relatives of citizens and green-card holders; 600,000 work visas for people who are sponsored by an employer and have less than a bachelor's degree; 600,000 education visas for people who hold a bachelor's degree or higher, with first call going to those who also have employer sponsorships or family ties. [More]
It may strike many of you as wrong-headed to argue for the economic merits of immigration when our culture itself seems to be at risk. I think we underestimate our ability to absorb and synthesize a new America with both Hispanic and European flavors. Besides, as I have argued ad nauseaum, the future belongs to those who will populate it. The Chinese will certainly be there, and the Indians, and with immigrants' help, America could be too.
The U.S. Census Bureau this week reported that Hispanics, the largest minority at 42.7 million, are the nation's fastest-growing group. They are 14.3 percent of the overall population, but between July 2004 and July 2005, they accounted for 49 percent of US population growth. Of the increase of 1.3 million Hispanics, the Census Bureau reported, 800,000 was because of natural increase (births minus deaths), and 500,000 was due to immigration. [More]
Many feel that national destiny is a function of wealth. I argue that our wealth is a function of population - that a growing economy needs a growing population, and furthermore, we can support far more people in the US that we have now.
After all farmers haven been arguing that for decades, and now if we have enough productivity to add fuel to our output, we can surely feed a few more fellow citizens.
At the center of our fears is, I think, the loss of our language and Northern European heritage. People speaking another language in OUR country stirs strong emotions. We have been here before. But I have great faith in the power of English ans a language and the American culture to absorb competing ways of life, simply because it is an amalgam itself. Our ability to find a new hybrid extends to more than just corn.
The possibility of a different kind of farm program has moved some legislators to near hysteria.
"It's a threat to rural America. It's a threat to every consumer - a threat to the nutrition of the whole, entire world," said Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla.
In case someone missed his point, he later added, "It is a threat to everyone, a real physical threat."
How so? Another committee member suggested that Kind's bill could triple the price of breakfast cereal. Another lawmaker predicted the legislation would lead to a "vastly consolidated world of agriculture production." [More]
Oh, puleeze - pretty much the rest of the universe knows subsidized commodity prices have little effect on food prices. In fact, the NCGA is bragging about it. In fairness, milk and sugar prices could be significantly lower without current policy, but obviously Rep. Lucas is unaware of how those programs work.
The idea my $24/A payment controls my destiny is embarrassingly ludicrous. Seems to me we're consolidating pretty vigorously even as we speak under current policy. And the pennies worth of grain in cereal is dwarfed by say, the latest advertising campaign.
As the increasingly divisive debate over immigration continues, efforts are stepping up to manage the labor problem if immigrants are not available. Like robot fruit pickers.
The more interesting aspect of the post for me was the tone of the comments. The immigration quarrel seems to bring out the worst in Americans.
You don't even score. The battle to reform farm policy may turn out to be little more than a tantrum. Gosh, it was exciting for a while. Imagine treating farmers like grownups! Even the White House got caught up in it.
But we were just fooling ourselves. A House ag subcommittee just brought us back to reality.
The panel, a subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee, brought each of several proposals for change to the farm bill to a vote before rejecting them, sending a strong message to those pushing for major changes to farm legislation. They include the Bush administration and a bipartisan coalition led by Representative Ron Kind, Democrat of Wisconsin.
The Bush proposal received one vote. The Kind proposal was defeated unanimously, as was an unusual proposal from Citigroup that suggested a voluntary buyout to farmers receiving subsidies. Even modest reforms introduced by committee leaders were rejected. [More]
Extending the current farm bill is easier, of course and will allow those of us who have been winners to continue current trends. We could know the outcome soon enough for 2008 cash rent bids, and without any meaningful payment limits, we can guess what that market will look like.
While there may be some minor drama on the House floor, or even the Senate, I'm sensing a political waxing here. The effort to persuade for rational treatment of our profession by our government is just one of a number of lost causes I have supported. Like the metric system.
I'm also cashing my checks with a slightly clearer conscience. (Not really - but it sounds tough, doesn't it?)
Or Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue? New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has dropped his affiliation with the Republican Party (haven't we all?) fueling speculation about a third party candidacy.
I would consider supporting him. He wouldn't need any special interest money, he could finance his campaign from his laundry budget.
Remember when the Argentina corn crop was a big deal for corn markets? And when we watched their growing production with nervousness? Here's why it's hard for countries to stay in competition with us long-term when they don't have the the kinks worked out of their government yet.
The economy is recovering, but it's clear that most Argentines don't have much faith that it will last. Many feel that the government is being dishonest about its economic data—or just making it up. One Argentine woman told me that though the government insists there's no inflation, the same pay that bought a cartful of groceries two months ago now buys just two bags.
Durable goods and long-term purchases usually are made with U.S. dollars, not Argentine pesos, a good indicator that Argentines aren't ready to trust their own currency. Most retail and service business will also give you a discount if you pay in cash instead of credit.
Yet for all the abuse they've endured at the hands of government, Argentines still are reflexively pro-government. Socialism and Peronism (now run by political and cultural elites who win votes by denouncing elitism) still rule Argentine politics. Market liberals are few and far between. [More]
Too often we forget how long and difficult our struggle to create our government has been. And how relatively successful. Regardless how many flaws we can find with our peculiar form of democracy, there are many worse.
Except - there is no ethanol "market." The ethanol business is driven by government planners, not freely acting buyers and sellers.
I didn't consider opportunities to portray ethanol distilleries as weapons in the global war on terror. I forgot about the 2008 presidential election, in which farm-state pandering will be crucial. In short, I forgot about the politicians, who show every sign of expanding the boondoggle to legendary dimensions and ensuring that investors pile into corn likker for years.
Things look bullish for ethanol projects whether or not they make economic sense. [More]
Regardless of whether you appreciate his reflections or not, it is the realization of the power of myth involved in the ethanol story. This is why, gentle readers, I am not waiting for the bubble to burst or land prices to plummet. Indeed, I consider this moment the time to double down on our corn bets.
I know, I know - I'm looking at a drought too.
But this thing is not going away.
It's true that the ethanol stocks I wrote about last summer have declined on fears of a glut. Under current law, most gas can't contain more than 10 percent ethanol, and at some point all the gas will be blended. Most cars aren't supposed to use richer blends. A fall in gas prices would also hurt ethanol producers.
But have faith in the politicians, who still haven't found a limit on how often they can play the al-Qaida card. Ethanol investments are indeed a bubble, but with government's aid there's no guessing how big it'll get.
It is not necessary to agree with every aspect of a business to profit by it.
The USDA has made subsidy data much more personal.
It's not just wealthy individuals who get farm subsidies - state governments are reaping the benefits too. In Arkansas, for example, EWG ranks the state's Department of Correction as the top subsidy beneficiary, pulling in nearly $2.3 million from 2003-2005. The University of Illinois is first in Illinois, with nearly $1.3 million in payments for the three-year period. [More] [Emphasis added]
I just don't get any sense of outrage, but maybe the combined efforts of disparate voices such as Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) will have some effect:
Current farm policy favors corporate special interests. Fully 70 percent of the payments go to the top 10 percent of farmers, and even more of that benefit is concentrated for the large processors. What’s more, aid is so concentrated in a few powerful states that the support received by most states is almost negligible. We deserve a food and farm policy that serves all Americans, not just the politically-connected. [More]
It would be easy to giggle about a liberal from Oregon wandering into the farm policy debate like a choirboy into a pool hall, but efforts like these have sprung up all over. While they may be too diffuse politically to accomplish much, we DCP-collectors need to remember we can't fool all of the people all of the time.
If the issue is decided in committee, we can extrapolate our future pretty easily. If it is determined by the Congress as a whole, who knows?
Rudy Giuliani: Six visits to the state show that Giuliani at least knows where Iowa is. But as a national figure who polls remarkably well, "America's Mayor" has made no secret of his emphasis on Florida and other "Super-Duper Tuesday" states over the traditional first three; strategists in rival campaigns simply note that garnering the nomination this way would upset the calendar once and for all. To the extent he does decide to take on the state, Giuliani's chances in Iowa are hampered by a slight tin ear for the rhythms of the heartland: it's not just his support of abortion rights and his colorful personal life, but missteps like his advance staff reneging on an event with an Iowa farmer who turned out not to be rich enough to help illustrate Giuliani's stance in support of abolishing the estate tax. [More]
While some have argued moving up so many big-state primaries to early February will make Iowa more critical, I'm not so sure. This could be the last moment in the political sun for the tiny electoral prize.
Observers close to the action at Paris Hilton's court appearance were struck by her tearful denunciation of the action of the House Subcommittee on Specialty crops ignoring calls for reform to farm payments.
The draft also reauthorizes the peanut program, including an extension of the 2002 Farm Bill's direct and counter-cyclical payment and loan provisions for peanut farmers. The loan rate would be increased from $355 per ton to $375 per ton and payments acres would be lowered from 85% of base acres to 74%.
The Subcommittee voted to extend the current sugar program until 2012, requiring the USDA Secretary to continue to operate the program at no cost to the federal government by avoiding forfeitures of sugar. [More]
(Well, they were pretty sure that was what she was wailing about.)
I shed a tear as well. Given this development, the Pelosi position suddenly becomes more interesting.
Farm policy may never see the light of day in this presidential campaign.
I wonder what the economic loss to IA could be from reduced media coverage?
Because the economic impact of a political primary is so short-lived, few deep analyses have been done on the subject. Officials in Iowa, which hosts the nation’s first contest in the presidential campaign calendar, the Iowa Caucus, suggest the quadrennial event brought between $70 million and $90 million into the state in 2000, but have never quantified how they arrived at that number. [More]
Interesting commentary on how the farm bill process might develop.
“So this is a huge deal. If Pelosi blocks amendments on the bill, it is very possible that reforms suppported by the majority of the House will not be in the House version of the farm bill because votes will never be allowed. This would be a subversion of democracy- one committee being allowed to write an enormously important piece of legislation without regard to the desires of the rest of the House. In effect, this means that the citizens represented by Ag Committee members will get to write the farm bill- and to hell with everyone else.
“Let me go further. If Pelosi blocks amendments on the 2007 farm bill that are supported by a majority of the House, that would be a clear message that the change in leadership in the House means nothing at all; that the Democratic leadership intends to run the House in the same top-down corporate fashion as its predecessors.” [More good political analysis]
As I have said before, Pres. Bush (remember him?) is still a wild card, and could actually be a powerful reformer ally - regardless of whose side of the aisle they are on. The question is would reformers vote to sustain a veto?
With Rep. Peterson apparently aiming for equal dissatisfaction as a goal, the mechanism seems to be in place for achieving this lofty ambition.
Maybe they don't seem like farm-subsidy friendly politicians, but still ya gotta respect a civic leader who can say things like this:
While questions continue to arise about the alleged plot to blow up a fuel pipeline beneath JFK Airport and surrounding neighborhoods, some are questioning why New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg hasn't had a louder voice since the plot was foiled on Saturday.
On Monday, Bloomberg finally weighed in, but his response was not what some would have expected.
"There are lots of threats to you in the world. There's the threat of a heart attack for genetic reasons. You can't sit there and worry about everything. Get a life," he said. [More]
My thoughts exactly. The best answer to the terrorist threat is not to build a fortress America complete with police state and rampant paranoia. It is to keep on keepin' on.
Meanwhile Sen. Hagel is mirroring my own political pilgrimage.
What distinguishes the politician from the political agitator is a lively concern for his own job security. Politicians sometimes say what they believe, but they don't usually say things that might jeopardize their political future. Until recently, Chuck Hagel was a consummate politician, and a successful one at that. He defeated a popular sitting governor in his first Senate race in 1996 and won reelection, in 2002, with 83 percent of the vote. While he occasionally strayed from the GOP fold on foreign policy--an ardent internationalist, he had criticized both the Iraq war and neoconservatism generally--his credentials as a loyal Republican were never in doubt. He has long been a predictable vote on issues of importance to the American Conservative Union, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Christian right. And he remains so. It's not well-known, but Kyoto foe Hagel is still skeptical that humans are triggering global warming. "We always had climate change," he told me during a recent interview. "The issue is what is causing this. We still do not know." [More of an superb article, free subscription required and recommended]
While we parse the minute details of nuance and expression of the early debates, I find hope for the Republic in people like these who are increasingly compelled by their beliefs, rather than polls.
The ethanol boom is being studied closely to try to get some handle on what the longer term implications for farmers might be. Consider this interesting study by economists at the University of Illinois["Call us if you can play football! Even a little bit!"].
Once Federal mandates for use of biofuels are reached, ethanol's primary use will be as a substitute for gasoline. As such, the ethanol price will have to be competitive with the gasoline price so that consumers will buy ethanol-blended fuels. Because corn is the major production cost for ethanol, the price an ethanol producer will be willing to pay for corn, hereafter referred to as the break-even corn price, will be directly related to the ethanol price. As the ethanol price increases, the break-even corn price increases. Moreover, ethanol price will be directly related to crude oil price. Therefore, break-even corn prices will be positively related to crude oil prices. As crude oil price increases, the price of gasoline will increase leading to higher ethanol and break-even corn prices. Conversely, decreases in crude oil price will lead to a lower gasoline price, a lower ethanol price, and a lower break-even corn price. [More]
There follow neat rows and columns of figures, but the punchline for me was the assumption I have highlighted above: "Once Federal mandates for the use of biofuels are reached". This year will get us to around 6B gpy (gallons per year) on our way to a mandate of 7.5 gpy.
But wait, why not just move the goal line?
Refiners would be forced to triple their use of fuel ethanol over the next decade, under legislation expected to start moving through the Senate this spring.
The legislation, outlined Tuesday by leaders of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, would require use of 18 billion gallons of biofuels by 2016 and 36 billion gallons by 2022.
All but 15 billion gallons of that biofuel each year would have to come from sources other than corn, such as crop residue, switchgrass and forestry waste. [More]
My perception is at the first sign of markets adjusting to higher corn prices and reducing farmer margins to historic levels, heavy ag lobbying will get the mandate raised. Cash rents, seed, fertilizer, machinery, etc. are already responding to producer liquidity and exercising pricing power. Keep in mind the market still isn't paying the current price for corn right now. End users are still partially feeding off doofs like me who will deliver some $2.50 corn this fall. (I don't want to talk about it!)
My suspicion is the input cost spiral will truly take off this winter as almost all of us sell crops with averages starting with threes and sevens. Producer margins will head back to more modest levels and, having tasted better, intense pressure wll arise for lawmakers to deliver.
From a politician's point of view, mandates are a beautiful thing, man. You don't need a budget for starters. You simply speak and somebody else has to figure out how to pay for it. Having experienced this magic power once, it will be hard to resist repeating. Especially if the farm bill turns out to be less than a crowd pleaser for your farmer constituents.
Getting back to the oil/corn price analysis, such studies make for interesting conversation. But it seems more likely we are in for a punctuated equilibrium model of price evolution - not a smooth curve.
As I read the op-ed columns and lobbying group papers on the farm bill debate one theme is fairly consistent and we all saw it coming.
One problem with the farm bill has been its historical lack of balance. For example, only 39 percent of all U.S. farmers and ranchers received crop subsidies in 2005. These farm-bill subsidies support the growing of commodities such as corn and soybeans, but have little support for fruits and vegetables.
These imbalances have consequences for eaters. Between 1985 and 2000, the real price of fruits and vegetables increased by 40 percent, while the price of soft drinks and other sugary and high-fat foods declined by as much as 20 percent. If our farm bills had been healthy-food bills, we could have distributed government support more equitably to make nutritious food more affordable. In part because of this imbalance, we are paying more than $100 billion a year in obesity-related medical costs. [More] [My emphasis]
Say what you will about the Environmental Working Group, but the power of one guy (yup - that's all) armed with a decent computer, good database skills, and well-run website is formidable. Subsidy proponents simply have been unable to counter these exposed numbers, especially when they contrast significantly with the traditional rhetoric of farm payments.
The maldistribution of government money also plays well for those who argue about local producers being short-changed.
There's growing demand to change how the subsidies are allocated. Some say it's unfair that commodity growers receive nearly all the money. And there's a push to spend more money helping farmers solve environmental problems and less on direct payments to individuals. [More]
Moreover, the breadth of the coverage and interest in the new farm bill seems greater. Opinions are popping up in places that never cared much before.
Each year the federal government makes payments worth millions to farmers across the country -- many of whom are massive corporations, not the average family farmer, like Maine farmers. These subsidies promote inefficiency and encourage growers to "game" the system in order to qualify for larger subsidies. [More]
This means there could be fewer easily-traded-for votes from urban legislators than in the past. When you don't have many farmers in your district/state, why not swap a farm bill "aye" for a vote that will impact your constituents? That type of thinking may not be as easy to come by anymore. Pressure groups have arguably lowered the "disinterest" in farm payments, I think.
The bottom line - if the forces at work in the farm bill debate cannot alter the path of this juggernaut legislation, it could be as close to as close to permanent as the Constitution. But as I mentioned in this week's USFR commentary, a number of small changes (slightly lower payment cap, wider distribution, less market-distorting, etc.) could essentially make our farm program an afterthought for industrial producers in the booming grain business.
This Death of a Thousand Cuts is starting to look like the optimal outcome to me.
The end of political careers seems to be sparking some serious effort to get something done on trade - if for no other reason to add to legacies and detract from the w-a-r when historians get to making notes. ForBush, Blair, and even Angela Merkel the "doable" part of their long and mostly unchanging to-do lists is shrinking.
The four governments are trying to conclude a framework this month so all 150 WTO members can work out a draft by the end of July. The Bush administration wants to use progress on the global talks to persuade Congress to renew the president's trade negotiating authority, said John Weekes, a trade adviser with Sidley Austin in Geneva.
The U.S. said in talks this week that it no longer expects the highest farm tariffs to be slashed by 85 percent, said the WTO's farm-talks facilitator, Crawford Falconer of New Zealand. The U.S. has agreed to scale back that demand to ``a more realistic zone,'' he said May 29.
European politics also favor a deal, as British Prime Minister Tony Blair and German Chancellor Angela Merkel try to pull together an agreement before their mandates expire. Blair, who has championed the Doha Round, plans to hand power to Gordon Brown on June 27, and Germany holds the presidency of the EU until the end of June. [More]
So just when everybody and their Senator are calling for farm policy reform, the US gets religion on trade which will also impact the farm bill significantly? Not if our farm lobby can help it.
US farm groups have warned the Bush administration against compromising on farmers' interests as trade negotiators push intensely to broker a new world trade deal under the Doha Round.
The warning came even as the European Union and the United States tried to pave the way for a breakthrough in global trade talks nearing a potentially make-or-break phase. [More]
Ya gotta admire that kind of chtuzpah. Usually a warning contains an explicit "or else this happens" or at least a clear hint of some retaliation.
What exactly are farm groups going to do if a deal is brokered that they find unacceptable? Lobby harder? March more farmers to Washington?
It's not like we've got veto power or even a vote. And with even farm-state Senators working to scale back farm payments, our "bloc vote" doesn't strike me as very threatening.
The concept of special interests "warning" our president is an unfortunate addition in public debate, IMHO.
Besides, if we know one thing now, this president doesn't "warn" well.
Little Jimmy Weisemeyer comments on the farm bill to date and hits the nail on the head.
Farm bill wild cards: If President Bush vetoes many FY08 appropriations bill, this would muck up House and Senate floor debate for the farm bill and could push the end zone into 2008. Also, I am still not ruling out a presidential veto of the farm bill whenever it comes if it exceeds the spending level the White House eventually lays out, and/or if the bill doesn't provide most of the reforms reflected in the administration's farm bill language. [More, by subscription]
The farther we go into the sunset of the Bush administration the less predictable he becomes. Crimony, when your ratings are in the low thirties, what have you got to lose? The idea of Pres. Bush vetoing a generous farm bill is not unthinkable.
See, you just thought of it.
Nor would the farm bill be the only example. Consider the quiet efforts by the administration to reform food aid.
But critics say it does so in a way that benefits American shippers and food producers at the expense of thousands of people who die of hunger unnecessarily. That's because under its Food for Peace program, the U.S. buys only grain and other food produced in this country, and then ships 75 percent of that load on U.S.-flagged ships, which many say delays delivery of food aid that is needed in a hurry.
Now the Bush administration has joined those critics, quietly proposing a change to Food for Peace, the Eisenhower-era aid program that provides hunger relief overseas, a shift that the White House contends will save 50,000 lives a year. But the change faces sharp opposition in Congress and from states with influential farm and shipping interests. [More]
It could also be that the iron grip of the White House has been loosened allowing conservative administrators a chance to do something, well, conservative before hitting the consultancy road.
The supplemental emergency funding for Iraq was seen as a major victory for the administration. Like many of the President's wins, it was largely bought on credit.
Democratic leaders still insisted on about $20 billion in non-war domestic spending as part of the deal. That includes money for military and veterans' health care, Hurricane Katrina relief, military base closure costs, drought aid for farmers and medical coverage for poor children. Also part of the deal is the first federal minimum wage hike in more than a decade. [More]
Another example: the immigration deal between legislative leaders and the White House deleted the requirement that illegal immigrants pay back taxes to earn citizenship.
Forget that part about the taxes. The Bush administration actually asked that the provision requiring payment of back taxes be dropped from the bill, and it was taken out. Kennedy had it in! ...
P.S.: White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said:
Determining the past tax liability would have been very difficult and costly and extremely time consuming.
Try that "difficult and time consuming" excuse out on the IRS if you're a U.S. citizen and see how far it gets you. ... [More]
This pattern is pretty firmly fixed for both branches of the current government. Lacking any compelling crisis such as interest rates, the solution to every problem from gay marriage to energy prices will likely be found in adding to the deficit.
Well, every problem except the deficit, of course.
I have been re-reading my posts and to my surprise, have noticed my references to bi-partisanship and cooperation suddenly appearing. It was apparent in the announcement of the immigration proposal, and the new farm bill idea put forward by a mixed group of Congressfolk last week as well.
Trade issues have also been rejuvenated.
Of course, there are many who deserve credit (or blame, depending on your perspective) for the deal.
On the Republican side, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab, and House Ways and Means ranking minority member Jim McCrery, of Louisiana, all showed they could get something done with a Democratic House.
On the other side, House Trade Subcommittee Chairman Sander Levin, of Michigan, a leader on developing a new consensus on trade, nailed down guidelines he has been championing for years. Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defied critics by showing she is willing to both take on the president and cooperate on legislation when appropriate. [More]
It is hard for me to pinpoint exactly how this pragmatic spirit is gathering momentum. But until proven otherwise, I'll ascribe it to politicians who are sincerely interested in getting something done and weary of confrontational, strong-arm legislating.
This also means we'd better pay attention a little more closely to what's going down in DC. Stuff could happen!
Is that, like history, it often isn't obvious at the time. The courageous immigration deal announced today had a honeymoon of maybe 30-35 minutes before being roundly criticized by both sides.
The Senate will wade into an emotional and wide-ranging debate on the issue next week that promises to test the unlikely coalition that produced the deal. Almost instantly, the plan brought vehement criticism from both sides of the immigration issue, including liberals who called it unfair and unworkable and conservatives who branded it an overly permissive "amnesty." [More] [More]
The immense effort required by both Congress and the administration nonetheless should be applauded. This is one of the few examples of national leadership we have seen from Washington in years.
I think much of the outcry will originate from politicians who are afraid of losing their one reliable election year issue. If there is an immigration plan in effect, somebody might ask why we can't have a fiscal policy too.
As someone who does more than my share of pointing out flaws in our leadership, my hat's off to those who worked to get us even this far on this issue.
Has the constant stream of news from Iraq and the thundering oratory of warning about the Mideast started to, you know, leave you cold?
Maybe it's because you are thinking clearly.
Western analysts are forever bleating about the strategic importance of the middle east. But despite its oil, this backward region is less relevant than ever, and it would be better for everyone if the rest of the world learned to ignore it [More of a great article]
How long can a crisis continue before it becomes simply the way thing are? I suggest 4 years - the duration of high school, a presidential term, the timing of leap years, etc. At this point then, what most of us have been fussing about in the Mideast is likely the way things are and are going to be.
Our tendency - aided by the media desperate to deliver advertiser eyeballs - to label every event catastrophic has been so amplified by ubiquitous communications that perhaps our brains are tuning out to save our sanity. And in our sane moments I think we would call some bluffs on crisis-mongers.
There is a fascination in DC with "czars". With the Iraq war not proceeding exactly as planned, Pres. Bush is looking for a "war czar". The obvious question is "Isn't that your job?", but it seems he has had an upgrade to "commander guy".
(Man, I couldn't even make up stuff this good). The list of czars is getting longer.
# In 2001, with escalating concerns about possible attacks on our information technology infrastructure, Bush named a "cybersecurity czar." # In 2003, the president's desire to help his corporate benefactors led to the creation of a "regulatory czar" at the Office of Management and Budget. Around the same time, Bush named his first "AIDS Czar." (He didn't choose wisely -- Bush tapped Randall Tobias, the administration's former top advocate of global abstinence-only policies, who was recently forced to resign after procuring "massages" from a controversial Washington escort service.) # In 2004, faced with growing discontent over the nation's struggling manufacturing industries, Bush appointed a "manufacturing czar." (He chose the chief executive of a Nebraska company that had laid off manufacturing employees and built factories in China.) # 2005 was a banner year for czars. In February, Bush responded to revelations about failed national security intelligence by creating an "intelligence czar." Shortly thereafter, we had a "bird-flu czar." A few months after that, following the tragically botched handling of the response to Hurricane Katrina, there was a "Katrina czar." [More]
What if the administration appoints a business czar - would he/she be the "biz-czar"?
Anyhoo, the tendency to appear like we're solving problems by handing it to a czar strikes be as overt belief in dictatorial power for stuff you really really want to get done. No wonder our government is doing so well with the old democracy method.
To refresh memories, I agree that humans are a significant cause of global warming via greenhouse gas emissions. This has been an evolving position, but my belief is grounded largely in the opinions of those I have come to trust. Two new developments reinforce my convictions.
RAY SUAREZ: But you do accept the proposition that human activity is changing the climate of the planet?
BJORN LOMBORG: Absolutely. I think, as you also mentioned, we've seen huge U.N. climate panel reports come out, and they've been ever more certain that climate is changing. We do have an impact. And, therefore, it's also important that we address the question, what should we do?
But we've also got to remember, just like we know that it's CO-2 that causes a part, at least, of climate change, we also know that HIV causes AIDS. We also know that mosquitoes cause malaria. We know that lack of food causes malnutrition.
Now, we know a lot of these things. We don't fix all problems in the world right now. And so I urge people to start thinking, not just to go for the most fashionable problem, but to actually ask the very fundamental question of saying, if you can't do it all -- and clearly we don't -- where can you do the most good first? [More]
Meanwhile, science writer Carl Zimmer, points out the shortfalls in climate-change news coverage. Months ago a report came out suggesting plants were contributing enormous amounts of methane and thus greenhouse gases were a natural, not anthropogenic, problem. It later proved to be erroneous.
Some pundits didn't heed the scientists, though. At Foxnews.com, columnist Steven Milloy declared that deforestation ought to reduce global warming. "Our understanding of global climate system is woefully insufficient to support the rush-to-judgment advocated by celebrity-backed global warming alarmists," he claimed. The folks from the Wall Street Journal editorial page declared that "this is causing big problems for the tree-huggers." Rush Limbaugh sarcastically said, "Well, hot damn. God is to blame for global warming."
Fast-forward eighteen months. A group of Dutch researchers put the Max Planck team's conclusions to the test by tracing radioactive carbon isotopes through plants. Their conclusion: "There is no evidence for substantial aerobic methane emission by terrestrial plants."
The paper went online today, published in the journal New Phytologist. (It's free here.) The publisher sent out a press release, but my search has turned up almost no news coverage. There were three stories that were nothing more than cut-and-paste copies of the press release. I found just one piece of original reporting, at a site called Chemistry World, which I now intend to read regularly. The article casts the new paper as the first in a series of new publications that support both sides of this methane vs no-methane debate.
I do not expect that Rush Limbaugh will bother mentioning this paper. The world of punditry leaves me generally baffled. But as a science writer, I'm disappointed that this paper is not getting reported more in the press. If the original paper was so important that it should go on newswires and appear in newspapers and magazines, then what makes this new one less so? [More]
The intense politicization of climate change has hardened positions on both sides. Meanwhile the real debate seems to be: how can we make a buck out of this?
Our age of criticism is based on one teeny logical flaw: Ideas need not be perfect to work. While I have no pretensions of being a man of science, I have come to respect deeply the power of Science - the inclusive search for objective truth. Engineers like me put scientific results to work, and we rely upon scientific method to continue to serve as as it has in the past. Even if our understanding is incomplete.
Hence my position on anthropogenic climate change. I have written several times ( here, here, here, here, and here) about the evolution of my position from general skeptic to acceptance of the position favored by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. In short, I believe in wise crowds.
The recent predictions by the IPCC - even after watering down - reinforce my conviction. I would offer four other reasons why I embrace the position that humans are causing a significant portion of the now verifiable global warming.
The flip-floppers seem to be all flipping one way. (OK, Mitt Romney is an exception, but is there any issue he is not steering hard right on?) If anthropogenic climate change was still in a hazy cloud of uncertainty, shouldn't scientists be changing their positions in both directions? Farmers have another issue as well: biotech acceptance. How can we deride those who overlook the consensus of science saying biotech plants are safe when we refuse to acknowledge the consensus of science on global warming?
In any case, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that current varieties of genetically enhanced crops are safe to eat and don't pose unusual risks to the natural environment. But that isn't stopping Greenpeace from waging a global "Say no to genetic engineering" campaign or the Friends of the Earth from demanding a GM Freeze. Perhaps the idea of scientific consensus is not all that it's cracked up to be. After all, scientific consensus does not mean "certain truth." Whatever the current consensus of any scientific issue is can change in the light of new research. Nevertheless, environmentalist ideologues accuse those who question the climate change consensus of bad faith and worse. But aren't they exhibiting a similar bad faith when they reject the broad scientific consensus on genetically modified crops? [More]
The politics of resistance to human-causality now overshadows the science. Thank you very much, Al Gore. Many on the right are cut off from objective thought because it could lead to idealogical apostacy.
As I see it, the opponents of action on climate change fall into two camps. In one camp are the ideologues. These are people with a knee-jerk negative reaction to any kind of environmental regulation—or, for that matter, any kind of government regulation. They are also people who never met an international treaty or institution that they felt was worthy of U.S. support – apart, perhaps, from the International House of Pancakes. Getting this group to support U.S. action on climate change and/or U.S. participation in any kind of national or global response to this issue is, in short, a lost cause. [More]
Since global warming has become a political issue, we decide by politics - although to be fair, the performance by pseudo-conservatives in power in other arenas (economics, foreign policy, etc.) is making this less of an issue.
Real businesses betting real money. Seriously wealthy board members on large corporations are betting fortunes that the climate problem is real. Some want to make money fixing it, some want to avoid losing money because of it, and some simply think it it the right way to act. Climate change is on the agenda.
The skeptics are becoming shriller and stranger. The tenor of the debate has become paranoid in the opposition. Conspiracy and even weirder threads fill the void left by decreasing rebuttal evidence.
Several readers have offered links to the opposing viewpoints, which I have carefully read, and used to check my own position. Find them here and here.
Science, in the course of history, has been self-correcting and productive. Neither can be said for religion or ideology. I'm going with the scientists on this one.
It seems much of our "rural development" money finds it way into influential urban Congresshumans' districts, despite need or any actual rurality.
All told, the USDA has handed out more than $70 billion in grants, loans and loan guarantees since 2001 as part of its sprawling but little-known Rural Development program. More than half of that money has gone to metropolitan regions or communities within easy commuting distance of a midsize city, including beach resorts and suburban developments, a Washington Post investigation found.
More than three times as much money went to metropolitan areas with populations of 50,000 or more ($30.3 billion) as to poor or shrinking rural counties ($8.6 billion). Recreational or retirement communities alone got $8.8 billion. [More sad reading]
Those wacky French - guess what they are up to now? By some estimates they could be on the verge of electing a farmer President of France.
Well, Mr. Bayrou is the anti-excitement candidate, a sort of political Prozac after all the amphetamines of the Sarkozy-Royal conflict. He is fairly young at 55, and he has a relatively full head of hair, but so far he has left the paparazzi in a soporific daze. He wants to unite everyone — he’s a member of a centrist party but might well appoint a Socialist prime minister; he is a Catholic but a staunch defender of secularism in schools. The message is that if he can unite God and the atheists, surely he can unite France.
Most of all, he is something that even urban voters see as quintessentially French — a farmer. His official Web site shows him pitchforking hay on the family farm, and he was recently quoted in the weekly Le Point as saying: “My friends and I aren’t the jet set. We’re the tractor set.” [More]
While viewed as unlikely, a Bayrou victory would be an astonishing development even by French standards.
A Bayrou victory, which is unlikely but not impossible, would constitute a triple revolution. It would lead first to the end of the Socialist Party created by Francois Mitterrand. Following former prime minister Lionel Jospin's humiliating defeat in 2002, the Socialists simply would not survive a second consecutive failure to reach the second round.Moreover, a Bayrou victory could signify the end of the conservative party created by Chirac, as well as of Charles de Gaulle's Fifth Republic. But de Gaulle's legacy would most likely be snuffed out gently, with nostalgia for both Mitterrand and Chirac possibly proving very tempting for a people disaffected with the political system but desiring to be reassured. France wants the illusion of change, but is continuity what she truly desires?Finally, while this election was expected to usher in a new generation of politicians, few were prepared to anticipate the peaceful political tsunami that a Bayrou victory would bring. Yet that would be the outcome if the attraction towards the center proves to be as irresistible for significant segments of the Socialists and conservative parties as it now seems. [More]
Our two party system rules out the possibility of a none-of-the-above vote by the electorate - usually we just stay home on election day to signify discontent. As Republicans grovel to the extreme right and Democrats to the left to gain the nomination, the hope is candidates will wander back to the center after the primaries.
Parliamentary systems can actually have centrist candidates, although that seems to insure all the excitement the middle can feature. And Bayrou seems to fulfill those low expectations.
The 55-year-old Catholic, a father of six children and farmer from the southwestern French Béarn region, has figured out how to position himself as an anti-establishment candidate, hero of the common man and antidote to voters' dissatisfaction with the government and politics. Bayrou presents himself as a "peacemaker" who stands above the traditional trench warfare between the right and the left, a struggle that has so far consumed the full attention and energy of the frontrunners. [More]
He is playing the "farmer card" intensely, despite being in government for a considerable career. (Do I hear a Jimmy Carter drawl?)
The outcome in France will likely affect the current economic balance between the dollar and the euro. It will also impact how France deals with their own Islamic question. None of the candidates shows much inclination to adjust hard-line French policies toward farm issues, especially concessions to achieve a WTO success.
I'll be watching this campaign, which ends with the election April 22. What happens in France - despite our disinterest - does matter .
Some however, think that the case is exactly the opposite:
Because Republicans are concerned about losing both control of the legislative branch (2006) and the executive (2008?), the base has decided to be pragmatic. Find me a winner and we'll back him. Because Democrats need to retain control of the legislative branch and believe that they have their best shot since 1992 at picking up the executive, the Netroots are being as pragmatic as the GOP base. So the "aura" if inevitability and electability keeps everyone in their places. Lose that aura and you're done. The front-runners (all of them) can lose that aura completely in Iowa and New Hampshire. And if they do, there's nothing to fall back on, the base will cut them loose in a heartbeat. [More]
One thing is certain, this wide open race - unlike anything we have seen for decades - is going to be very long, very harsh, and very expensive. You think the price of farmland is accelerating - look at the price for the White House!
Regardless, with good chances for higher prices in the foreseeable future, farmers have less to risk in any given candidate. We might surprise people and choose on the basis of gay marriage, or fiscal restraint - or most likely - the Iraq War.
Farmers have never block-voted anyway. But the sense of inevitability of farm program changes and the diminishing economic effect of subsides for many of us certainly can let the attention wander.
Global corn supply may be about to lose a contributor. As South Africa starts to seize and redistribute farms from whites to blacks (their terminology - not mine) it would be reasonable to anticipate a steep decline in SA output.
South Africa has seized its first farm - in the clearest indication yet that it is bowing to growing pressure to redistribute land to majority blacks.
Black pressure groups and trade unions have been threatening to begin invading farms unless the government moved quickly to redistribute land.
Among many of South Africa's 50,000-plus white commercial farmers, this first land expropriation by President Thabo Mbeki's government echoes Robert Mugabe's violent land seizures in neighbouring Zimbabwe where at least 4,000 farmers have been evicted from their land, leading to the collapse of that country's economy. [More]
While the Mugabe action in Zimbabwe was stunning in its economic stupidity, it set a pattern of revenge that will be hard to prevent being echoed in other countries.
Currently (as of July2006), Zimbabwe suffers from widespread food shortages, the world's highest inflation rate at over 1,100% (Year on Year Figures for June according to the CSO) and a bitter political struggle often turns violent between the ruling ZANU-PF party and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change which has faced imprisonment and torture. Domestic and international critics lay much of the blame for the current chaos at the feet of the land reform program. Many Zimbabwean refugees have fled to South Africa or Mozambique. [More]
I also wonder where these suddenly-cashed-out Afrikaners will choose to invest. They are great farmers, and should they wind up in Hungary or Poland or Nebraska, they will be formidable competitors.
[Note: One great source for background on South Africa is reading "The Covenant" by John Mitchner. It's readable prose, but mostly it downloads an immense amount of concentrated history, geography, etc. to the reader in a palatable form.]
If you think about other countries where redistribution might occur, it is hard not to speculate on the leftward tilt of much of South America, and ponder the future of farms in Brazil.
Back in the day, you knew who was on what side. Conservatives - especially evangelicals - were over here, and Birkenstock-wearing eco-loonies were over there. Not any more.
DALLAS — Texas' largest Baptist group is taking a rare step into environmental advocacy, working to block Gov. Rick Perry's plan to speed the approval process for 18 new coal-fired power plants.
The Christian Life Commission, the public policy arm of the Baptist General Convention of Texas, is mobilizing Baptists against the coal-fired plants and urging the convention's 2.3 million members to voice their opposition to state lawmakers.
"A lot of people felt like our industries, our policy leaders, are going to take care of these big issues like air quality, (and) it's not going to be something our local people are going to have to get up every day and worry about," said Suzii Paynter, director of the commission. "It can't be left to big interests to make these decisions in our behalf."
The Baptists stress that they are not jumping into full-blown activism, but even a small move toward environmentalism is significant. [More]
Nor is this an isolated example. Neither should we find it particularly surprising.
Indeed, the surprise isn’t that environmentalists and evangelicals might find common ground. It’s that we haven’t noticed how much common ground they’ve long shared. Evangelicalism and environmentalism are global movements of activists concerned about the salvation of the world through both social action and individual conversion. They also share that peculiar mix of cynicism about current social practices and optimism about transforming those practices through faith, reason and hard work that is found in all idealists.
The question both groups must take up is whether idealism is adequate to the task of addressing the problems of global warming, environmental degradation and species extinction. After all, whether any of us would use either label to describe ourselves, the vast majority of us think recycling is generally a good idea—though we’re still likely to throw that empty soda can into the trash. Our problem isn’t that we disagree with the goals of environmental health; it’s that our actions don’t necessarily lead toward achieving them. So if environmentalists and evangelicals really want to do something together, they might think less about convincing us about what we ought to do and more about motivating us to do it. [More]
Voting groups rarely stay put for any length of time. The collective action of millions of people is observed like poeple watching water vapor molecules in the sky. Look, we say, it's a pony. But minutes later it's a map of Florida.
Many who were firmly on the right are re-examining their beliefs. And many of us are shifting our vote on what is really, really important. This fluidity is what excites the media because if few ever changed their minds, what would be the point in persuasive prose?
The success of evangelical churches leads them to similar but not identical paths as older faith bodies. The issues of the world eventually have to be addressed - even those fraught with controversy. When pastors like Rick Warren lead believers to discuss our response as Christians to creation, he fulfilling the duties of all leaders: to confront the challenges they feel are most important to their followers.
This will not occur without cost. Already the evangelical movement is struggling with the politics of environmentalism. My guess is several leaders like James Dobson would just as soon take pass on global warming and concentrate on issues like gay marriage.
It will be interesting to watch which shepherds the flock follows.
Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton? Is it me or are we starting to look like a monarchy? And if so, is it a bad thing? Michael Barone (US News and World Report) considers the idea:
Not that anyone assumes that family members are all alike. It would not do for candidate Bush in 2000 and for candidate Clinton today to claim to be clones of his father and her husband. Rather, candidate Bush made comments about his mother's fearsomeness, and candidate Clinton's "let's chat" suggests that she is more of a listener and less of a nonstop talker than her husband. So the trend to royalism may not be all bad. It does give some candidates an unfair advantage over others. But let's face it: Only four of the 300 million living Americans has been president and probably only 10 or 12 more ever will be. We need as much knowledge of our presidential candidates as we can get and, if we get some of it by knowing their families as closely as we know the families of recent occupants of the White House, so be it. As Bagehot put it, "The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is, that it is an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other."
In any case, it's no sure thing that a Clinton will follow a Bush who followed a Clinton who followed a Bush. But keep the following in the back of your mind. George P. Bush will be eligible to run for president in 2012. Chelsea Clinton will be eligible to run for president in 2016. So will Jenna and Barbara Bush, who will turn 35 several days after the election. And Jeb Bush, who had a fine record in eight years as governor of Florida, will be younger in 2024 than John McCain will be in 2008 or Ronald Reagan was in 1984. Royalism may be here to stay.
Just what we needed - another catchy target for renewable fuels. Let's review:
25 x 25 [0r 625, for short] - This effort shoot for 25% of all energy needs to be sourced from renewable energy by 2025.
25x'25 Vision: By 2025, America's farms, forests and ranches will provide 25 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States, while continuing to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed and fiber.
15 x 15 x 15 [3375] - This goal is to produce 15B bu. of corn turning it into 15B gal. of ethanol by 2015.
Doggett presented the association’s 15 x 15 x 15 vision that calls for corn growers producing 15 billion bushels of corn to produce 15 billion gallons of ethanol by 2015.
20 x 10 [200] - This idea is to reduce US gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years.
A sevenfold increase in ethanol production over 10 years is key to Bush's plan to cut projected U.S. gasoline usage by 20 percent, reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil and enhance the environment. He also wants more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Bush's proposal wouldn't be fully effective until 2017. In the meantime, motorists will have driven up gasoline consumption by about 15 percent, according to government and industry projections. While critics want more rapid conservation, plan proponents say that a 20 percent reduction by 2017 still would be significant.
All these goals have some things in common. They all are set for the future when the authors will likely be safely off the scene. They all assume we've had our last short corn crop. I mean, if Pioneer and Monsanto can't save us, who can? Finally, they all are betting round numbers will make the market obey.
Well, I can play their little game, too. How about these plans?
3 x 5 - A national commitment to get 3 times more 5 year-olds on cell phones.
Despite the growing buzz about their candidacy, some, such as CNN political analyst Bill Schneider, say the family's lack of political experience is a setback. Phil, 49, is a pediatrician; Janice, 47, a homemaker, graduated from the University of Connecticut with a history degree; and Wesley, 19, and Phil Jr., 17, have been widely criticized for their youth. Likewise, the family has yet to form an exploratory committee, and, almost all observers agree that, with a combined annual income of less than $70,000, they are already at a serious fund-raising disadvantage. They were also roundly chided by the media after a major misstep in which John Jr. referred to the historic Shaker Village in Canterbury as "sucky." [More]
How sad is it when cnn.com has to label humor columns? Or has politics become indistinguishable from satire?
Other voices in the Farm Bill debate (Volume 2)...
I've been noticing that casual web searches for "farm bill" yield some unexpected hits. While few farmers worry about do-gooders being able to touch our LDP's, there do seem to be a few more factions weighing in this time around:
Bread for the World hasn't released the kits yet, but the message will be this: America has a moral obligation to change the way it subsidizes farmers and put more money into conservation, nutrition and rural development.
"What we have learned is that the current system does not work for rural America," said the Rev. David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World. "Disproportionately, the money in the farm bill is going to a relatively few people, mostly prosperous people." [More]
My comment: It is hard to use "pit bull" defense tactics on benevolent organizations like this if you are a farm lobbyist, unlike say, complaints from the sugar users or the oil industry. Some of us may even find our consciences listening to them. Plus the incredibly concentrated distribution of farm payments is receiving more and more media coverage. It's hard to keep enough lipstick on this pig.
Maryland farmers are not getting their fair share of the money that the federal government hands out each year in farm production payments. That's a major complaint of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which says that if bay region growers received as much funding as their Corn Belt counterparts, the bay could be a lot cleaner.
An analysis by the environmental group shows that for every dollar's worth of food produced in Maryland, farmers receive 4.8 cents in federal support money. That is well below the national average of 9 cents. Farmers in North Dakota receive an average of 22 cents in federal payments.
The payment figures are based on the foundation's analysis of the U.S. Department of Agriculture farm support payment data for 2000 to 2005. [More]
My comment: While there has always some internecine squabbling between regions over farm payments, the EWG has demonstrated that one guy with a laptop can sort the numbers to reveal inequities - you don't have to wait years for the USDA to describe what happened in the past in vague terms. Now every group is doing their own number crunching.
Moreover, I don't know how to break it to these folks, but farm subsidies are not about food. If they were, we wouldn't send cotton farmers money, right? Farm payments are political subsidies - we get them because we can make Congress do it. And when acres vote (the Senate) ND will win over MD every time.
Democrats - the party of fiscal discipline (Benefit of the Doubt Rule #6) But seriously,
Also on Friday, Democrats will focus on "fiscal responsibility" through debate of measures promoting "Pay-As-You-Go" (PAYGO) budgeting and earmark reform, a reference to pork-barrel projects or line items inserted in "must-pass" legislation.
According to a Democratic fact sheet, PAYGO restrictions "will not allow consideration of any bill, amendment or conference report where the combined effect of provisions affecting mandatory spending (such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and farm bills) and revenue would increase the deficit over the five-year and 10-year windows, relative to the Congressional Budget Office baseline." [More]
My comment: I'd sooner bet on Rex Grossman as Super Bowl MVP, but hey - they deserve their chance. The image of a Democrat Congress tackling farm bill costs only is possible for me to envision if I factor in a payment limit and/or increased money for conservation, and political voter polls which convince Democrats are going to lose southern rural voters anyway because of social issues.
Coming up in my next post about new voices in the farm bill debate:
• #2: This year I will be unequivocal in my support of free trade. I am going to stop bashing the Chinese for offering bargains to American consumers. I am going to ask the Bush administration to revoke the textile quotas so Americans will find it easier to clothe their families. I am going to vote to repeal the antidumping laws, which only protect powerful domestic industries from foreign competition. I am going to admit that unilateral disarmament in the trade wars would make the U.S. a richer nation.
• #3: This year I will ask farmers to accept the free market. While I believe the government should provide a safety net for the truly needy, taxpayers shouldn't have to finance handouts to farmers, many of whom are wealthy. Farmers should meet the market test as much as anyone else. I will vote to repeal all federal subsidies to growers of corn, wheat, cotton, soybeans and rice. I will vote to allow unrestricted import of sugar. (See resolution no. 2.) I will tell Americans that eliminating our farm subsidies should not be a "concession" made in trade negotiations but a policy change that we affirmatively embrace.
Big deal - another egghead economist comes out against farm subsidies. This is news?
One reason to make note of it: Mankiw is advising the all-but-announced, darling-of-the-right presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney.
It is a joy to begin to work with the Divine Universal Sisterhood and continue on my journey to become one of the few good men who will support our Queen Sister’s in the 2007 Farm Bill Debate, together we can eliminate forever low, low, low, low food insecurity in our nation. [More]
My comment: While doubtless well-meaning here, the um, "Sisterhood" probably means low food security, not insecurity. (Low insecurity is a good thing).
But for the first time, federal farm policy, and at the heart of it, the 2007 Farm Bill, have an opportunity to bring about major reversals of that trend. As a result of growing pressure from developing nations and from other sectors of the U.S. economy, the agricultural industry is beginning to face the reality that it's once-holy commodity subsidies are going to have to be dismantled, or at least substantially reduced, in order to open up free trade opportunities elsewhere.
At the same time, conservationists, environmentalists, hunters, fisherman, and a host of other interest groups have pulled up seats at the table and are demanding that inroads be made towards righting past wrongs, and that small but critical successes of the past two decades be matured into more meaningful long-term solutions. Where farm policy was once the problem, now many of them see it, hopefully, as a solution. [More]
My comment: I don't find the concept of lots of minor lobbying forces constituting a challenge to the ag lobby convincing. These groups have not demonstrated either cooperation or commitment to changing ag policy if it even mildly threatened core issues (like emissions control or in this case, urban planning), hence they are easily co-opted. If farm policy is going to be changed it will occur because fiscal hawks dig in their heels and the President follows through on a veto threat, IMHO.
CALL TO ACTION Each of us must use our own expertise in a particular subject matter area that you’ve heard mentioned today. § Do you know your Congressman? Her or his staff? See me afterwards. § Do you understand the positive effect that payment limitations would have on Farm Bill debate, on our relations with our trading partners, on our own farmers? Can you talk about it in a factual, passionate way? See me afterwards. § Are you a member of Western Growers Association (WGA)? California Farm Bureau Federation (CFBF)? Agricultural Council of California? A marketing order or commission? Can you work with your colleagues on areas of common concern? See me afterwards. § Have you used any of the programs in the Conservation title, like EQIP or WHIP? Do you have good relationships with NRCS? See me afterwards.
My comment: California has such a huge Congressional delegation this might amount to something in the House. In the Senate, cotton has a firm grip on both Sen. Feinstein and Boxer.[Sen. Boxer's site even refers obliquely (I think) to the payment limitation issue as "discrimination against California commodities such as cotton, rice, wheat, corn, and dairy".]
Speaker (presumed) Pelosi will be a different fellow altogether than her predecessor. She might even whip the House into near equality with the Senate on farm legislation. I'd call it a long shot, however.
Q. – Is the political situation in the United States conducive to them making major concessions at the WTO?
THE MINISTER – Given the budgetary situation in the United States, the American Executive is very keen for – and needs – a reform of the Farm Bill. It is finding this agricultural policy too expensive. To have outside pressure, in this instance the WTO negotiations, to compel Congress to accept such a reform is invaluable to the American administration./.
My comment: The French are masters at making any outcome look like they planned and delivered it all along. The issue for France is complicated by the public disdain for the Bush administration and their own elections. My guess is if the French want a given Farm Bill outcome, they would be wise to come out against it.
Will these non-traditional players have any impact? I dunno, but if any do - all could.
Perhaps the best news from the recent exercise of democracy in the US was the return to divided government. Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune hails the day:
Despite its traditional principles, the GOP's monopoly in Washington has merely freed Republicans to indulge the empire-building, power-lusting, overspending, control-freaking elements that all politicians harbor deep in their souls. Government outlays have swelled, government intrusions have expanded, and the only reason the 82nd Airborne no longer escorts kids to kindergarten is that the job has gotten too dangerous. [More]
For those of us in agriculture, this is great news [if you are not fond of subsidies]. Republican deficit hawks now are free to obstruct passage of budget busting spending without calls to support the GOP. And President Bush, anxious to improve his questionable legacy has no reason to sign spending-spree legislation. In fact, to reclaim the fiscal conservatives so they can be re-used in the next election cycle, he could even be more hard-line on spending.
It may just be me, but it seems the more evidence we accumulate to substantiate anthropogenic global warming, the less we seem to care. Certainly the recent African summit evinced few signs of panic or even interest, especially by the major players.
THE United Nations conference on climate change, which closed on Friday in Nairobi, was distinguished mainly by its ineffectualness. Like many such events it had proclaimed a grand ambition: to design a more effective régime to replace the Kyoto protocol after 2012. But for all the posturing in the plenary sessions, there was no sign of urgency or radicalism in the corridors. [More]
It is almost as if winning the academic battle was THE battle. This peculiar point of view mirrors many political squabbles as well. If we can get our opponent to admit he/she is wrong, then we win - despite the fact the problem still remains.
So we spend our time parsing with a microscope press conferences and newspaper accounts for flaws and openings, but little actual effort is spent in corrective action.
Redistricting has become synonymous with political extremism and party warfare. Last year, legislators staged bizarre confrontations in Colorado and Texas over unprecedented attempts to change district lines in mid-decade.
But unlike many other states, in 2001 the Iowa Legislature was able to re-draw its congressional and state legislative districts with little controversy.
Whether or not computerized redistricting would make for good government, it offers some interesting exercises in mathematics and computer science. Algorithms for redistricting exploit techniques from computational geometry, graph theory, combinatorics and optimization methods. Even if such algorithms are never embodied in law, perhaps they can suggest some ideas that would be useful in a more conventional approach to redistricting.
In announcing progress for the Iranian nuclear program Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was clad in his now-traditional windbreaker. I have noticed this sartorial statement for months and have thought he was hoping to have it catch on fashion-wise, presumably like Mao jackets.
Williams: Mr. President, this is not a matter of great concern, this next question, but we have gotten used to seeing you in the tan jacket with the zipper. Today, you are dressed differently. Is that jacket a symbol of your standing or upbringing in Iran?
Ahmadinejad: No. It depends on which one I'm more comfortable wearing. And it of course depends on my colleagues and friends, too. I knew that you were going to wear a suit, so I decided to wear this jacket.
What was that about? While I'm just a small-potatoes blogger, Williams is pretty heavy journalism in a $2000 suit - and he asked the guy who wants to exterminate Israel about his jacket??? "Mr. Stalin, I notice you're wearing pleated pants..."
Taking a page from the anti-Tammy Duckworth campaign dirty tricks book, if I were a seed corn dealer, I'd send him a jacket from the competition.
The New York Times, among other papers has a good profile of Jon Tester, the new Democratic Senator-elect from Montana. For those of us who know only the headlines about this race, it offers some helpful background info.
All his life, Mr. Tester, 50, has lived no more than two hours from his farm, an infinity of flat on the windswept expanse of north-central Montana, hard by the Rocky Boy’s Indian Reservation.
For all the talk about the new Democrats swept into office on Tuesday, the senator-elect from Montana truly is your grandfather’s Democrat — a pro-gun, anti-big-business prairie pragmatist whose life is defined by the treeless patch of hard Montana dirt that has been in the family since 1916. [More]
The article is also interesting to me for its format. Note the large number of hotlinks. When a traditional publication like NYT institutionalizes a info-techno change like this it can mark a milestone in communications.
Blog readers have been growing accustomed to hotlinks for years now, but my feeling is more readers will find newspapers one-dimensional in comparison.
Want to check out the source for accurate citing? Just click and read yourself. Want to see more pictures/charts/examples? Follow the link.
This ability to add informational depth may be the big driver behind readership shifting to the Web from newspapers, not flashy screen tricks. Judging from my own experience hotlinks rapidly make reading printed materials seem sparse by comparison.
During the 1990s, then-Sen. Phil Gramm accurately described U.S. farm policy as "enough to make a Russian Commissar puke." The Republicans assembled the "Freedom to Farm Act," which, starting in 1996, put U.S. farmers on a glide path toward an end to subsidies. Somewhere between the field and the silo, however, we became mired in the political mud. In 2002, we repealed the Freedom to Farm Act and in its place installed the "Farm Security Act" -- those who value the adage about trading freedom for security can pause and shudder here -- with even more lavish subsidies.
Now, with reauthorization of the Farm Bill on the horizon next year, we have to decide whether we will up the ante with Democrats in terms of red state/blue state politics in the heartland, or whether we believe our own rhetoric about free markets. This debate will have implications larger than the fiscal one. Most notably, it will determine if we are serious about the future of free trade.
Does this mean the ag lobby should be concerned about the outcome of debate over Farm Bill '07? I think not, UNLESS for whatever reason the economy is struggling and interest rates are through the roof.
What it could mean is an agonizing choice for many rural "red" voters whose allegiance to the Republican party on social issues is sacrosanct and who are alarmed by the GOP embracing fiscal discipline.
In short, a lot of farmers could have to choose between gay marriage and LDP's .
US Farm Report host John Phipps surfs the Web so you don't have to...
About Me
Name: John Phipps
Location: Chrisman, Illinois, United States
Jan and I farm 1700 acres near Chrisman, IL. I have also written humor and commentary for Farm Journal and Top Producer for 13 years.
Please visit my website (www.johnwphipps.com) to learn about my speaking services for your group's next meeting.
