Showing posts with label Farm Bill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Farm Bill. Show all posts

Thursday, May 22, 2008

This time, no screw-ups please...

This is what it looks like when the Republican Party breaks with its President and runs for the hills out of abject terror that the people are going to turn on them:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment No. 2 with Amdt. No. 4803 )
Vote Number: 137 Vote Date: May 22, 2008, 11:42 AM
Required For Majority: 2/3 Vote Result: Motion Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4803 to H.R. 2642 (Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008)
Statement of Purpose: In the nature of substitute.
Vote Counts: YEAs 75
NAYs 22
Not Voting 3


McCain ducked it. Huckleberry Graham voted against it. Kit Bond? Kit Bond ain't messing around. He and Pat Roberts voted for it. A majority of Senators up for re-election voted for it. Hell, BOTH Murkowski and Stevens voted FOR it. The only vote NAY that surprises me was Charles Grassley.

Now, on to the House. Get it right this time, please.

And when you can tell us what the Cuban Missile Crisis was all about, then maybe you can make the joke stick, okay?

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino on Thursday ridiculed House Democrats after a clerical error threw a wrench in their plans to override President Bush’s veto of the farm bill.

“It shows that they can even screw up spending the taxpayers’ money unwisely,” Perino quipped to reporters aboard Air Force One.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Here Come the Threats and the Empty Posturing

Hold on a minute...we're going to call a do-over with our Farm Bill post just like the House did a little while ago...

The House overwhelmingly rejected President Bush's veto of a $290 billion farm bill Wednesday, but what was to have been a stinging defeat for the president became an embarrassing episode for Democrats.

Only hours before the House's 316-108 vote, Bush had vetoed the five-year measure, saying it was too expensive and gave too much money to wealthy farmers when farm incomes are high. The Senate then was expected to follow suit quickly.

Action stalled, however, after the discovery that Congress had omitted a 34-page section of the bill when lawmakers sent the massive measure to the White House. That means Bush vetoed a different bill from the one Congress passed, leaving leaders scrambling to figure out whether it could become law.

Democrats hoped to pass the entire bill, again, on Thursday under expedited rules usually reserved for unopposed legislation. Lawmakers also probably will have to pass an extension of current farm law, which expires Friday.

"We will have to repass the whole thing, as will the Senate," said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y. "We can't let the farm bill just die."

Republican leaders called for a farm bill do-over. The White House, almost gleefully, seized on the fumble and said the mixup could give Congress time to fix the "bloated" bill.



It's a setback, to be certain, but what is needed now is a little bit of legislative statecraft and sleight of hand to GET the farm bill BACK on track and get it passed. Was the bill sabotaged? Who knows? But the President simply doesn't matter anymore. That's why so many Republicans are voting for the Farm Bill this year.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Wheat Is No Longer King



Inspired by the Washington Post series on The Global Food Crisis...
Now, more than ever, we need to focus on what has been going wrong in farm country. From bad farm legislation to indifferent politicians to ignoring the expansion of big agribusiness conglomerates, what we should be doing this spring is adjusting our policies. Instead, we're focused on Reverend Wright, St. John McCain, and Grand Theft Auto IV.
...with 100-pound bags of North Dakota flour now above $50 -- more than double what they were a few months ago -- he [Stephen Fleischman] sees no alternative to a hefty increase in the price of his signature product, a bagel made by hand in the back of the store.

"I've never seen anything like this in 20 years," he said. "It's a nightmare."

Fleishman and his customers are hardly alone. Across America, turmoil in the world wheat markets has sent prices of bread, pasta, noodles, pizza, pastry and bagels skittering upward, bringing protests from consumers.

But underlying this food inflation are changes that are transforming U.S. agriculture and making a return to the long era of cheap wheat products doubtful at best.

Half a continent away, in the North Dakota country that grows the high-quality wheats used in Fleishman's bagels, many farmers are cutting back on growing wheat in favor of more profitable, less disease-prone corn and soybeans for ethanol refineries and Asian consumers.

"Wheat was king once," said David Braaten, whose Norwegian immigrant grandparents built their Kindred, N.D., farm around wheat a century ago. "Now I just don't want to grow it. It's not a consistent crop."

It is precisely because of the fact that we don't engage on these issues anymore that farm policy means virtually nothing in America. It's been scrubbed from our consciousness. It's been eliminated from the culture. Did you happen to notice--the Ashton Kutcher-inspired trend of wearing a mesh farmer cap never really took off. If you live on the East Coast, as I do, you see nothing farm related and almost no relevant news on major websites. Don't go looking for it in the paper--you won't find much there.

In fact, the series I'm quoting from is one of the few times you will see these issues talked about with any substance. Even then, without agriculture beats and without prominent news divisions based in the Midwest these days, you're only getting a small sketch of the issues.

In the 1980s, more than half the farm's acres were wheat. This year only one in 10 will be, and 40 percent will go to soybeans. Braaten and other farmers are considering investing in a $180 million plant to turn the beans into animal feed and cooking oil, both now in strong demand in China. And to stress his hopes for ethanol, his business card shows a sketch of a fuel pump.

Across the Red River and farther north, in Euclid, Minn., Don Strickler, 63, describes wheat as "a necessary evil." Most years, he explained, farmers lose money on it. Still, it provides conservation benefits and can block diseases in soybeans and sugar beets when rotated with those crops.

Wheat's fall from favor, little noticed when it was cheap, has been long coming. Though still an iconic symbol of American abundance -- engraved on currency and praised in song -- the nation's amber waves of wheat have been increasingly shoved aside by other crops. The "breadbasket of the world," which had alleviated hunger and famine since World War I, now generally supplies only a quarter of world wheat exports.

U.S. farmers are expected to plant about 64 million acres of wheat this year, down from a high of 88 million in 1981. In Kansas, wheat acreage has declined by a third since the mid-1980s, and nationwide, there is now less wheat in grain bins than at any time since World War II -- only about enough to supply the world for four days. This occurs as developing countries with some of the poorest populations are rapidly increasing their wheat imports.

Sadly, this same type of story appears often, and this one from almost two years ago could have been written today:

Once the driving force behind transforming the United States into the “breadbasket of the world,” wheat is being steadily replaced by corn as the crop of choice for American farmers.

Genetic modifications to corn seeds, the growing demand for corn-based ethanol as a fuel blend and more favorable farm subsidies are leading farmers to plant corn in places where wheat long dominated. In Kansas, known for a century as the Wheat State, corn production quietly pulled ahead of wheat in 2000, with Kansas producing 23 percent more corn than wheat last year.

This year’s drought-ravaged crop is expected to be the second-smallest harvest for American farmers since 1978. It follows a year in which American farmers planted the fewest acres of wheat since 1972. And while corn acreage nationwide passed wheat about a decade ago, its footprint and that of soybeans are spreading across a greater swath of the Midwest, farther north and west into the Dakotas and central Minnesota — traditional wheat country, where growing corn and soybeans was once almost unthinkable.

“It is getting harder and harder for American farmers to say they feed the world,” said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, an environmental research group based in Washington. “Instead, they feed S.U.V.’s.”

The decline of wheat and the broad relandscaping of America’s farmland have come about for several reasons. Better seed technology has given corn and soybeans a widening edge over wheat, and more favorable subsidies have encouraged farmers to abandon wheat. Changing consumer tastes and food packaging advancements have slowed American wheat demand.

It's not like we haven't been warned. It's time for policymakers to engage on these issues and stop rewarding big agribusiness conglomerates for their bad behavior. It's time to hold hearings and try to add some incentives to stick with wheat growing. As the latest farm bill goes into effect, it's time to take the steps necessary to grow more wheat and stabilize our supply.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Two Quick Updates

The Farm Bill is working its way through the system.

The chairmen of the agriculture committees in the House and Senate have agreed "on the major sticking points of the Farm Bill," reports Barbara Leach of My Rural America, channeling Jerry Hagstrom of CongressDaily, a subscription-only news outlet.

"Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus and House Ways & Means Committee Chair Barney Frank still have to agree on the offsets," Leach writes. "House and Senate conferees still need to vote on various other issues." And there's still a question about whether President Bush will sign the bill, veto it or allow it to become law without his signature.


Club-hopping, arms-dealing Eurotrash gets a reprieve from appearing before Congress:

For those of you waiting to hear from the senior executives behind AEY, Inc., you'll have to wait a little longer. The House oversight committee, which had set a hearing for 22 year-old AEY President Efraim Diveroli, his 25 year-old VP (and masseur) David Packouz, and the company's general manager, also 25, to testify, has indefinitely postponed the hearing.

Packouz's lawyer had informed the committee that his client would be pleading the Fifth unless he received immunity to testify -- something which seems unlikely. So that likely has something to do with the postponement. Diveroli and his boyz are under federal investigation for allegedly lying about the source of the ammunition he provided to the Afghan army.

Monday, April 14, 2008

Farm Bill Negotiations Continue

Occasionally, you stumble on a blog that does certain issues really well, and this looks like one of them. The Rural Blog points out that there are serious Farm Bill negotiations that are going to be taking place today. Essentially, there is disagreement between the House, Senate and the White House over how to reform or provide subsidies.

David Rogers learned the agriculture beat in Washington as a reporter for The Wall Street Journal. Now he writes for Politico, the political news outlet, but from time to time offers some of the best reporting on what's going on with the Farm Bill. He writes today that negotiators "are staring failure in the face, with a major deadline Friday, continued Democratic infighting and the commodity lobby’s stubborn resistance to altering an outdated subsidy system." Trade issues are also complicating the talks.

In his new role, Rogers is able to be more analytical and pointed, and he gigs the Bush administration: "Having raised the banner of reform, the White House appears to be playing the role of the spoiler, resisting even modest revenue-raisers accepted by House Republicans while refusing to come off the bench and pressure for some savings from direct payments to producers, now costing $5.2 billion a year even with today’s high crop prices."

The biggest stumbling blocks are the Senate's wish for an extra $4 billion in disaster aid, pushed by the National Farmers Union and other interests from the marginal, drought-sensitive row-crop region of the Dakotas and Montana, and $2.5 billion in tax breaks, including one for the horse industry. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) told Rogers, “The tax package will not be in this farm bill. It ain’t going to happen, and the sooner the Senate realizes that, the better.” Peterson dropped the disaster provision in a compromise offer last week, infuriating Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Rogers reports. But Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee has deeper problems with his House counterpart, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel of New York, over Baucus' proposed revenue measures to pay for the disaster aid.


Peterson versus Baucus is really a Minnesota (corn and soybean agriculture) versus Montana (wheat and cattle agriculture) type dispute. I'm generalizing, of course, but there are competing interests at work. You have Southern California and Florida up against the interests of Iowa and Minnesota; you have tobacco growers against horse breeders.

A good place to sort all of this out is The Rural Blog, because I'm not the go-to guy on this stuff, to be honest with you.