Farm energy programs take a hit if President Obama gets his way.

“Where’s my cut?” was the name of the game in Washington this week (isn’t it always though) as the President released his proposed budget for fiscal year 2013. Already, the President’s budget is being termed “dead on arrival;” as its call for a dramatic increase in the tax rate sits uneasy with many in Washington, but nonetheless, it’s a perfect venue for determining just what the President’s priorities really are. After looking over the President’s budget, specifically agricultural spending, it’s very clear that the Obama Administration lacks an understanding of just how agriculture works and how it can benefit the US economy.

There are several unsettling terms in President Obama’s proposed budget that will have a very negative impact on the 2012 Farm Bill, particularly for bioenergy programs. During the USDA budget briefing on Monday, Secretary Vilsack specifically stated that there is “unlimited opportunity in the bio-based economy.” Apparently, the Obama Administration disagrees.

The 2008 Farm Bill had authorized $1.037 billion in mandatory funding and $1.113 billion in discretionary funding to “advance the development of bioenergy and other types of renewable energy and energy efficiency across rural America.” Under that direction, various programs were created, including the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP), the Biorefinery Assistance Program (BAP) and the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). It seems plans have changed, because the President’s proposal only offers $4.6 million in discretionary funds for loans issued under REAP, and pretty much nothing else for other farm energy title programs. This is going to force Congress to consider whether or not to continue with these programs at all.

As for other agricultural programs in the President’s budget, there are mixed reviews. Here is a summary of what the budget does to other areas of American agriculture:

•  Cuts $32 billion over 10 years by eliminating direct payments
• Cuts over $10 billion from administrative costs over the next 10 years in an effort to restructure crop insurance payments
• Caps the Conservation Reserve Program at 30 million acres, saving $977 million over 10 years
• Increases the USDA’s Research, Education, and Economics  (REE) by $68 million
• Continues to fund the Market Access Program (MAP) and the Foreign Market Development Program    (FMD)
• Wheat researchers receive an additional $500,000

This is just an overview of what the President’s budget recommends for the 2012 Farm Bill. Naturally, Congress must approve his budget for it to proceed, and it rarely ever gets passed as it was initially written.

Wednesday saw the first hearing this year on the 2012 Farm Bill, and numerous others are scheduled in coming months. Those hearings will probably provide a better picture of how things are actually going to land. Even so, it’s nice to know the level of faith that the President and his administration have in rural America and its ability to contribute to energy innovation, economic growth, and the reduction of the deficit. We’ll keep you posted.

-Grace Boatright

National Grange Programs Assistant 

I want my MTV…and iPhone…and iPad…and…

This week in review: around 10,000 conservatives landed in Washington for a much needed pep rally; Congress passed a bill preventing Congressional members from trading their own stock portfolios (nobody else has money to trade anyway); Rick Santorum received three victories in one night, sending Mitt Romney into cardiac arrest; the USPS reiterated that without congressional help they’ll be going “postal” by October; China told Canada “Forget United States- you bring oil, we pay big money;” President Obama gave me a reason to love the Vatican; underwater home owners got a $26 billion settlement 3 years too late; and there’s still no deal on payroll tax cuts.

With all of this craziness consuming everyone’s time and concentration, it’s no wonder why there’s a major issue going on that’s not receiving as much public attention as it should- spectrum.

Truthfully, spectrum is a complicated issue and I am not expert on it- but it is critical to the expansion of broadband to rural America, and is something we should all be aware of- so I’ll try my best to explain it here. Spectrum refers to the government-controlled airwaves that companies purchase or license to transmit wireless signals. It’s required for television, Internet, radio, etc. There is a limited and finite amount of it, and as with all precious resources- much of it is unused, underused, or improperly used. Right now, there’s not enough for everybody to enjoy fast and efficient service, which is why you often experience dropped calls, dead zones, and many rural areas can’t get a signal at all.   

As one result of President Obama’s National Broadband Plan, which requires 500 megahertz of spectrum (what radio waves are measured in- like your local radio station 93.7, 95.5, etc.), TV companies are going to auction off over 120 MHz by shifting channels around (naturally, they’re set to receive some of the profits). At first glance, an auction seems like an honest, free-market solution to decide who gets it and how much. However, the problem right now is that the Federal Communications Commission has the authority to establish the rules of the auction- including who even gets to bid.

Putting that issue aside, for fun let’s just assume that everyone will get a chance to bid (remember- just for fun). Then the question becomes: is more competition a good thing in this instance? Smaller firms with little amounts of spectrum probably won’t be able to make as much of an impact in the expansion of broadband but have been committed to the investment of wireless in the not-so-popular high cost areas. The alternative seems to be giant firms (AT&T, Verizon, etc) with large amounts of spectrum monopolizing the market. Which is better, and which will provide the best prices for consumers? There are a lot of differing opinions on that right now.

Naturally, my democratic, all-American girl attitude has already concluded that the free market should always be just that- free, with anyone and everyone being able to participate. Historically, the free market system has always resulted in higher productivity, higher revenues for tax payers, and greater freedom for all. But that’s just my opinion.

This battle over spectrum has just begun, and there is bound to be more in the next weeks as Congress and FCC battle over turf and telecom companies size up their auction items. I will be monitoring it very closely, as should everybody interested in receiving and/or maintaining their high-speed Internet. To be continued…

Post Script: Many of you may have heard of Block D spectrum. This auction will not include any of the Block D spectrum that is currently used for government and first responders. At this point that spectrum is not to be auctioned.

-Grace Boatright

National Grange Programs Assistant 

A Good Day on the Hill for the Family Farm

It’s not often that I express pride towards our elected officials in Congress. After all, their approval rating currently stands at an all time low of 11%. However, yesterday I attended a Congressional hearing on the Department of Labor’s (DOL) proposed regulations to amend current child labor laws as they apply to agriculture and left feeling very proud of the men and women sitting on the committee…well…most of them. If you haven’t read my past blogs on the issue, the DOL has concluded that youth who work in agriculture are among the most “vulnerable” workers in America and are trying to limit what they can do on our nation’s farms and ranches. Specifically, they are trying to limit the ability of our youth to operate farm machinery, assist in the farm-product raw materials wholesale trade industry, and be in close-proximity to large farm animals. Obviously, this has not gone over well with the rural community, and yesterday’s hearing made that incredibly obvious.

Testimony began with a nice woman from the DOL who arrived to speak on behalf of the Department’s new proposal, and to essentially sell it to everyone in the room…I don’t believe she was successful. Of the ten members who sit on the House Small Business Subcommittee on Agriculture, Energy and Trade, only seven of them spoke on the matter. We were also joined by Congressman Denny Rehberg (R-MT), who does not sit on the committee but comes from a very rural area of Montana and felt the need to speak against the proposal…and boy did he ever. After the woman from the DOL concluded her testimony, the committee members were given the opportunity to ask questions or make comment.

I wont give you a play by play of the hearing, that would be long and tedious, but of all the members who spoke; Tipton, Chu, Critz, Rehberg, Bartlett, King, and Schilling, only Chu arrived to speak in favor of the proposal. The rest of the gentlemen had some very specific objections, primarily that it interferes with the daily operations of America’s family farms, and that the federal government has no business meddling in the lives of rural Americans. I was surprised to find that most of the Congressmen present had themselves been raised in rural America- especially Rehberg who still owns and operates a ranch in Montana. Once given the chance to speak, Rehberg informed the young lady from the DOL that her Department “doesn’t know agriculture” or anything about farm life, and that their proposal is “out of line, and lacks common sense.” However, my favorite comment from Rehberg was that the people at the Department of Labor “had seen Blazing Saddles too many times” and are letting that misguided opinion of rural America form their nonsensical regulations. Frankly, I wanted to stand up and clap.

My second favorite quote of the day came from Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD). He began his dialogue by informing everyone in the room that he was born in 1926, grew up in the Depression, and has no idea how kids today ever learn a work ethic. He said, “rural kids know how to work” and kids in urban areas are too busy “watching TV and smoking God knows what.” Again, I wanted to stand up and clap. However, his best point, and one that hadn’t been made before, was that parents are far more concerned for their children’s safety and well being than the DOL. In my opinion, he’s absolutely right. What can the Department of Labor do to protect children that their own parents couldn’t or wouldn’t do- absolutely nothing! Bartlett went on to say that most regulations are unnecessary because consumers aren’t stupid, and these proposed regulations are just more of the same.

The rest of the gentlemen on the committee had very similar things to say, and when all was said and done it was very apparent to those present that the DOL’s proposals are unfavorable and disliked at best. The committee asked that they simply withdraw their proposed regulations and we all go about our business. We’ll see if that happens. No matter how this turns out, I left the hearing feeling proud of our guys in Congress…or at least some of them. They didn’t fold, they didn’t sugarcoat their comments, and they didn’t try to negotiate. They stood up for rural America, put their foot down, and told the DOL what they needed to hear- that while their intensions are good, they’re better off sticking to issues they know something about and leaving rural America alone.

-Grace Boatright

National Grange Programs Assistant 

No Better time for a Parade

Since September 11, 2001 there has not been a single large-scale parade to honor and thank troops returning from the Middle East. During World War II, parades were held all over the United States honoring those who served, for those who returned and for those who paid the ultimate price. Granted, these parades also served to keep morale up, drive troop enrollment and the sale of war bonds. But lately I have wondered where are these parades today. 

This was my war after all, the one that has left a seared and visible scar on my past and present. It happened in my hometown, over the sky shared by the parks along the Potomac where I have distinct memories of playing with my father and the yard of my house. Even now, some of the visions of that day evoke a raw and primal anger within me that should be harnessed as a global energy source.

This war may not be easily measured by wins and losses or fit into perfect cookie-cutter definitions of rules of engagement. Terrorism is indeed a global plague that abides by no borders or laws. The impacts are indeed local and visceral and I demand a venue to celebrate those who fought for me, and they deserve nothing less.

This week, NYC mayor Bloomberg was pressed about why he had not organized a parade to celebrate the troops’ return from Iraq. He pointed his finger at the Pentagon for putting the stops out, decrying that they felt with so many troops still fighting in Afghanistan it might be premature.  The Pentagon responded that they had received no such request to organize a parade in NYC or any other city.  As a side-note, NYC held a ticker-tape parade in 1945 to celebrate the vets of V-E day while troops were converging on the Islands surrounding Japan.

This weekend, St. Louis will hold the first parade in honor of U.S. Troops returning from Iraq. This is not a Pentagon-sanctioned event but rather the product of two friends who decided this parade should happen, a Facebook campaign page, and a meeting with the mayor of St. Louis. After hearing of the campaign, Anheuser-Busch and Mayflower Moving Company chipped in a total of $17,500 to aid in the logistics of the parade.

As I write this, streets will be lined in St. Louis and flags will wave.  A connection will be made between countless strangers, soldiers and civilians, as they exchange a glance worth a million thank-you letters.  With an economy in the gutter, jobless claims at an all time high and a Congress and White House that seem so dysfunctional and detached from the Americans they are tasked to represent, couldn’t we all use something to celebrate and unite behind?

We all cringe when we remember the premature but well-intended President Bush in 2003, giving a rah-rah speech to troops on an aircraft carrier in the Middle East, under a banner that read, “ Mission Accomplished.” I am not proposing we put a stamp on anything and call it over. I don’t foresee a day in my lifetime we will be granted the gift of saying farewell to the practice of terrorism or claiming any form of military “victory” in that region. For many of these troops, they will be re-deployed, possibly to Afghanistan in the next few months.  However, I think we must all commend these folks and their families who make sacrifices I cannot fathom. To them, getting home to these families and their homeland is in itself the most important “Mission Accomplished.” I just would like to have the chance to show our troops and their families how incredibly thankful I am for what they do.

So if the Pentagon needs someone to request they organize a parade here in our Nation’s Capitol, consider the request submitted. 

-Nicole Palya Wood 

National Grange Legislative Director 

President Punts Pipeline Permit

This week, President Obama vetoed TransCanada Corporation’s request for a permit to begin construction on its 1,661-mile oil pipeline, costing $7 billion and stretching from Canada all the way to refineries on the Gulf coast. Despite the Washington Post’s claim that “regular people don’t care,” the President’s permit refusal has caused quite a stir among many in Washington and abroad…including this very regular person (washingtonpost.com). Leftist environmental groups are ecstatic, claiming that developing Canada’s carbon-intensive tar sands would hurt global warming, while others see the permit decline as the President’s political ploy to put off major decisions until after the November elections. I myself can be included in the latter group. 

The White House has claimed that it decided to deny the permit because it has not had adequate time to review the potential environmental impact created by the pipeline. Rather, they have decided to delay the decision until 2013. It seems the Obama administration feels like a year is an appropriate amount of time to fully review and revise the project…even though the State Department has been reviewing the pipeline project since its initial proposal in 2008 (FOUR years ago). The State Department has also stated that the pipeline project would create 5,000 to 6,000 construction jobs in the two years needed to build it; and those are just construction jobs.

Other jobs and productivity that occur as a result of the pipeline project were not included, like the inevitable purchasing of supplies and equipment, local stores and businesses benefitting from new workers spending money, accounting and financial services related to the project, etc.

Obama’s feelings of hesitation and caution are not mutual. The six states that were set to host the pipeline seem well onboard to have their local and state economies improved, even Nebraska, whose environmentally sensitive Sand Hills were a major concern to environmentalists groups. “It certainly is a major step backwards. We need to make contact with TransCanada. We need to review our statutes relative to what the President did. We need to figure out if this means we have to start all over again,” says Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman (Efstathiou). Nebraska officials had already undergone negotiations to have the pipeline rerouted around their Sand Hills, showing the cooperation and eagerness to move forward by those actually involved in, and affected by, the project.

What else does the U.S. have to gain from all of this, besides jobs and an improvement on our economy? How about the maintenance of our healthy relationship with Canada…one of the few friends we have left. Canada is our largest supplier of foreign oil (if you call Canada foreign), exporting to the U.S. around 2.67 million barrels of oil a day! That’s more than the Middle East and Venezuela. Wouldn’t we rather buy oil from a friendly, neighboring ally whose economy and political environment is stable (or as stable as economies and governments get these days), and whose close proximity to the U.S. could dramatically decrease the costs associated with shipping and transporting that oil? Anadarko Petroleum Corporation CEO Jim Hackett said Wednesday; “We have one of the most friendly nations to our country who has never stopped trade in my lifetime that is willing to send their supplies down to us as if it were domestic oil,” (Efstathiou). Talk about an offer you can’t refuse (although we did).

Those continual Canadians are not taking this lying down though. Plans to reapply for the required permit are already underway, as are plans to possibly take their business elsewhere. A different pipeline, reaching from the Canadian oil sands to the British Columbia coast, has already been proposed and if approved would start shipping oil to Asian instead. Bottom line- when times are tough, it’s not a good idea to spit in the face of one of the few friends you have left, especially when that relationship is worth billions of dollars.

So why would the President want to delay a project that creates jobs, improves our economy, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and improves relations with one of our biggest allies? I’ll let you decide for yourself.  

-Grace Boatright

National Grange Programs Assistant

The Washington Post. Keystone XL pipeline application rejected by Obama administration, will it hurt his reelection chances? Washingtonpost.com. January 18, 2012.

Efstathiou, Jim. Keystone XL Pipeline Seen Moving Ahead on Alternative Route. Bloomberg.com. January 19, 2012. 

Can slaying the federal dragon earn President Obama a second term?

Like most of you, I have wondered over the last few months just what Congress has actually achieved. I am usually the last to jump on the congress-bashing wagon due to the numerous exceptional statesmen and their staff that I know, but recently my little island is getting quite lonely.

During December and January the legislative activity in Washington is normally quite slow, as in tumbleweeds blowing across Pennsylvania Avenue. Then add the 7lbs of average holiday season weight gain to the turkey tryptophan and the whole federal and Congressional atmosphere seems a bit lethargic.  But at the end of January every year those of us legislative junkies wait with baited breath to see what the President will say in his State of the Union Address. The weight of this address during the year preceding a Presidential election cannot be underestimated, nor some underlying strategy ignored.

I have been wondering what President Obama was going to tee-up in the months preceding his address to the Joint Session, and now they have been revealed. With Congress offering the President little to wear on a victorious legislative breastplate, the President has turned to the cabinet; one thing he does still have administrative control over. This week in particular, he has told Congress he will be seeking even greater powers to consolidate cabinets and streamline those that survive.

Early this week, before a crowd of over a 1000 at the National Farm Bureau Federation Convention in Honolulu, Department of Agriculture Secretary Vilsack announced that his cabinet department, which employs over 100,000 workers, will close 249 offices.  In the last 15 months, 7000 USDA workers have accepted buyouts or early retirement offers. They are just one of 14 to do so since 2010 when the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) gave this permission. In 2011, a dozen departments got the same nod to offer buyouts.

I must admit, I did not see this move coming from the White House but I welcome its arrival. In recent blogs, I have vented about my frustration with continuing to feed the mouth of the federal payroll monster with my tax dollars, while our small businesses use monies to pay for regulatory compliance rather than add workers of their own, which cost us nothing. I applaud the President for looking in his own backyard for cost savings rather than continually pointing the finger at private enterprise and millionaires as the culprits. Maybe it’s not a breastplate of legislative victories, but I sure like the banner of smaller, streamlined government being waved in our Nation’s capitol. 

Look, I am a capitalist, consumer-drives-the-market type of girl and believe that this is a step in the right direction. When voids of services are exposed, private companies will answer the call and create jobs while doing so. I do, however, have some apprehension of what happens to all these federal workers once their buyout runs out or the pension doesn’t cover enough of the lifestyle they currently enjoy. Do they get added then to our overburdened unemployment ranks? Are we hedging current cost-savings on the 2012 budget for astronomical future unemployment insurance and rises in SNAP (food stamp) enrollees? 

What is clear, is that we have an administration which has changed tactics, and I like it. The real question, as far as the election goes, is will this move provide enough momentum to carry this President across the threshold of another term in office?  Can the White House be won without legislative victories, and by slaying the federal Goliath alone? Or will Rip Van Congress wake up and agree on something enough to mount a response? 

The President is scheduled to give his 2012 State of the Union Address on January 24^th at 9pm EST. Let’s watch and see.

Nicole Palya Wood

Legislative Director 

The Hawkeye Caucus

With Congress in recess, there really hasn’t been too much breaking news on the legislative front; not that Congress was overly productive before they recessed.  With legislative interests at a standstill, Washington has focused its political eye on the Presidential race. As most of you have seen, the presidential election is heating up quite rapidly, and 2012 began with one of the largest and most politically important events in every presidential cycle- the Iowa Caucus. I thought this might be an appropriate time to take a closer look into caucuses, what they are, and their importance in presidential elections.

Political caucuses are essentially a gathering of people who belong to the same political party. In today’s political realm there are thousands of theories about how each caucus outcome shapes the selection process for a party’s candidate.

Each caucus has different rules that can and do get changed periodically, but most operate on the rule that only registered members of the political party holding the caucus may vote. However, one has the option to change their registration right there at the door, should they wish to vote in a different party’s caucus. Caucuses can be held anywhere, but are usually held in schools, churches, community centers, and individual’s homes.

Once the caucus begins, there’s a traditional order of business that goes as follows. Upon arriving, people are asked to provide proof that they live in that particular precinct or district, and that they belong to the political party in question. Whatever precinct you reside in, that’s the caucus you have to attend. Once everybody is together, they elect somebody to monitor the time and keep things rolling. At the same time, they also elect somebody to tally the votes. Once that is over, they open the floor for “general business.” This is where it gets interesting.

General business is an open forum where anybody is allowed to stand up and talk about anything they wish- as long as it is political or legislative in nature. So the far right can get up and talk about abortion laws, gun nuts can talk second amendment, economists can speak on trade issues, etc. The KKK or NAACP could show up and they’d be allowed to speak- it’s open to anybody who met the aforementioned qualifications and was able to get through the door. This might sound wholesome and democratic but what usually happens is a certain sect of people use the occasion to rant and rave about their interest of choice and attempt to wear everybody else down so they’ll leave. For example (and this is an example so don’t shoot), the religious right might get up and start speaking out against abortion, which probably annoys the moderates just a bit, and occasionally it gets so heated that people do get up and leave. It’s sort of a filibuster if you will. It’s annoying, but it’s part of the caucus process.  

After debates have ended, a representative from each campaign, or if you’re lucky the candidates themselves, speak for just a few minutes; usually no more than five. Finding someone to do this is harder than it sounds. With 1,774 precincts, campaigns would have to find 1,774 people to do this, because the speaker must reside in the precinct in which they’re speaking. Hopefully, campaigns can find someone articulate and well respected within that community precinct to speak on their behalf. Once all the speakers present have made their peace, a poll is taken and everybody is asked what candidate they are voting for. This is where it gets extra, super interesting, and is definitely what separates caucuses from primary elections.

In primary elections, people show up to vote, they do so, leave, and everything is very anonymous. Caucuses are different, both in that they require more of a time commitment, 2-3 hours at least, and can get personal…VERY personal. Often times, in smaller districts and precincts, you could know most everybody in the room, and they know you. This wouldn’t be a problem if all the polls at caucuses were taken anonymously with paper ballots, but most often they’re taken with a show of hands, or they make people get up and divide into groups based on the candidate they’re voting for. For example, the person elected to take the votes can get up and say; “everybody voting for Newt Gingrich go to that side of the room, and everybody voting for Ron Paul get on the other side of the room,” etc. This is touchy for many people, and many people end up saying one thing and doing another for just this reason. Say the pastor of your church is there and you’re supporting a pro-choice candidate? Or a woman whose daughter was shot is there and your chosen candidate is heavy on second amendment rights? It’s upfront, personal, and because of this structure, everybody in your little hometown is going to know who you voted for. So that, in a nutshell, is how most American political caucuses are conducted.

Pretty crazy right?

So what’s so special about Iowa? The Iowa Caucus is undoubtedly the most important caucus of every cycle, primarily because it’s the first. It’s a big deal because it’s the first time anybody has to vote for anybody. It’s an indicator of how the rest of the election will pan out, and will reveal to candidates how effective their previous months of campaigning have been. In addition, because there are 1,774 precincts in Iowa, it’s very grassroots oriented and makes it hard for candidates to “buy” Iowa, although plenty of them try. For example, Rick Perry spent over $4 million dollars on campaign ads in the state of Iowa, only to come in 5^th. The Iowa Caucus is a big deal to most presidential candidates, and a victory there is highly sought by each campaign.

However, prior to the 70’s, the Iowa Caucus was hardly regarded at all. Jimmy Carter of all people is heavily responsible for the Iowa Caucus’ importance in modern day presidential elections. In 1976 Jimmy Carter was running for President but was getting little traction with the Democratic Party. When the Iowa Caucus came around, Carter came in second but was the only committed “official” candidate who received a significant amount of votes. Using the publicity from that victory, he somehow managed to win New Hampshire, the nomination, and eventually the presidency. Since then, every presidential candidate has devoted significant attention to winning Iowa. I think we can say with confidence that winning the Iowa Caucus is the only thing Jimmy Carter ever made fashionable. The real irony of the whole Iowa Caucus showdown however, is that it really doesn’t count for anything, not as it applies directly to the candidates anyway. All voters are doing is electing delegates to be sent to the county convention, then the district convention, the state convention after that, and eventually all the way to the national convention where everybody within the political party gathers to nominate a candidate for the ballot. Nonetheless, Iowa is still very much a big deal and will continue to be in future elections.

I know this blog has gotten a bit long, but I hope it helped you better understand what caucuses are, how they are conducted, and why the Iowa Caucus is considered such a big deal. Ask any Iowan, and they can probably tell you all of this off the top of their head, but it’s a bit more abstract to the rest of us. The New Hampshire primary is next week, and the 2012 presidential election will only get more contentious from here. It should be a very interesting year here in Washington. Thanks for reading and Happy New Year Grangers!

-Grace Boatright

National Grange Programs Assistant