View From the Hill

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

2012-02-17T09:37:00.000-08:00

“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…

2012-02-12T19:48:00.000-08:00

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

2012-02-03T11:19:00.001-08:00

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

2012-01-28T12:10:00.000-08:00

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

2012-01-20T13:21:00.001-08:00

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?

2012-01-15T07:54:00.001-08:00

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

2012-01-07T10:16:00.000-08:00

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

Generation Y on the End of the Iraqi War

2011-12-19T10:44:00.000-08:00

Thursday, 12/15/11 marked the end of the War in Iraq. It “officially” lasted 8 years, 270 days, claimed the lives of 4,483 American soldiers, and cost an estimated $800 billion. It began with an approval rating of over 60% (USA Today), and ended with an approval rating of around 29% (Polling Report.com). In other words, it was controversial.

Many people would like to argue that the War in Iraq (or the Iraqi War, or Operation Iraqi Freedom, or whatever you want to call it) was unrelated to the events surrounding 9/11. Vengeance and hate are attributes unbecoming to our American persona, but to me the War in Iraq had everything to do with 9/11. Terrorism, red alerts, weapons of mass destruction, Al Qaeda, and jihadist weren’t staples of our vocabulary before September 11, 2001. Following the 9/11 attacks these concepts became common lingo, and the Iraqi War was meant to put an end to these things that defined American fear at the dawn of the new millennium.

I chose the end of the war as the topic for my blog this week because unlike most of you who are reading it, I hardly remember when there wasn’t a war in Iraq. I was 12-years-old when 9/11 happened. I was wearing denim cut off shorts, Nike tennis shoes, and a white Old Navy t-shirt that day. My 7^th grade class was in the middle of our bi-weekly Catechism lesson, taught by the presiding pastor of my small Lutheran school. The first class of every day was either Bible study or Catechism, and that Tuesday was no different…or at least it didn’t seem different. Around 8:30 or so, our principle came into our classroom to tell us that a plane had hit one of the Twin Towers in New York. We were 12-years-old and at the time most of us could hardly point out New York on a map, let alone Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other locations that would soon become permanent lessons of our childhood. The Pastor immediately turned on the television, just in time for all 16 of us to watch the second plane hit the other Tower. We didn’t leave the classroom or hold any other classes that day. We just watched in horror as the news anchors repeated what little information they knew at the time.

I laid in bed that night confused and scared, assuming World War III had just begun and that our lives would never be the same. I was right about the latter. Unlike many kids the following Wednesday, I went to school. My usually over-protective father insisted on it. He told me I had to go to school because if I didn’t, the terrorists will have won. We were going to carry on with our lives no matter what.

September 12, 2001 marked the beginning of something new as well. Immediately the following morning, there were American flags everywhere. Kids at school passed out patriotic bookmarks, cookies, and flag lapel pins. Everywhere and everything was coated in red, white and blue. People were tame and friendly, almost like they’d awoken out of some coma. For a change, my innocence and fright wasn’t a result of my age, because everybody seemed that way. Nobody knew what to think. Overnight, metal detectors popped up everywhere, ammunition flew off of shelves, passport lines grew longer, security grew tighter, and our nation would never again exist in the casual, worry-free atmosphere it had enjoyed prior to that.

As controversial as the Iraqi War came to be, and whether you agree or disagree with whether or not 9/11 was a major cause for the war, you can’t deny the positive effects it has had on America. Operation Iraqi Freedom created a surge in American patriotism, a newfound love and respect for our men and women in uniform, the takedown of Saddam Hussein, and HOPEFULLY the beginning of democracy in the Middle East. It will forever be debated whether those things were worth the cost and effort of the war.

Truly, nobody was more affected by the war than our military personnel and their families. They dodged bullets and IEDs in triple digit heat, with a hundred pounds of equipment strapped to their backs, thousands of miles away from home because to them, avenging those killed in terrorist attacks across the globe and ending this era of fear was worth the effort.

Many of my school mates were among those who joined the military to fight in the Iraqi War. They were pumped and anxious, high on patriotism as they signed up to dismantle that which we came to hate in the aftermath of 9/11. They didn’t come back so pumped and excited. My dad talks about growing up in the Vietnam era of hate and segregation, and my generation will one day discuss growing up in our current atmosphere of paranoia and distrust generated by terrorism…or at least I hope by then it is a thing of the past.

The end of the War in Iraq marks the end of an era that began over ten years ago. Almost 4,500 solders died in Iraq, and over 33,000 were wounded. Their lives and the lives of their family and friends will never be the same. Our men and women in uniform will be able to spend Christmas with their families this year. We should all be happy about that. No doubt, many in Washington will manipulate the end of the war for political gain and leverage. That doesn’t really matter to me now. What should be paramount now is that we reflect on this conflict and hopefully learn something, because the wisdom achieved through so much sacrifice over a decade of war, would be wasted if we allow it to die with its victims. So this year, turn on your Christmas lights, Fly your American flags, thank a serviceman or military family and feel blessed that terrorism has no resting place here.

Merry Christmas everybody.

-Grace Boatright

National Grange Programs Assistant

Super Committee’s Failure Could Be America’s Victory

2011-12-09T11:22:00.001-08:00

The Not-So-Super Committee’s failure, anticipated though it was, will inevitably have major ramifications on just about every group and industry that has been waiting patiently to learn of the Committee’s proposals. Well, the Committee’s failure may very well be the best thing that could have happened. Erik Carter of Forbes Magazine might have said it best; “The most important lesson of all this has nothing to do with what may come out of it. Rather, the whole process is an example of what not to do.” What not to do is bypass our constitutional requirement that legislation begin with our democratically-elected representatives in the body to which they were elected- rather than a 12-member committee assigned to fix a problem that 535 elected members of Congress collectively could not.

Putting aside the excuses and pointing fingers, the failure came down to two facts: Democrats refuse to accept any cuts to entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security, and Republicans refuse to raise taxes on anyone. Not helping negotiations, both sides now have their own team of cheerleaders; Democrats with the Occupy Wall Street Movement and conservatives with the Tea Party. Yet either way, the results of this stalemate are vast, and most of them probably won’t be fully recognized for years. In the meantime we can deal with the immediate budget deadline.

The markets are obviously paying attention as the Dow dropped 250 that Monday, which doesn’t help the economy, consumer sentiment, or U.S. reputation in this global economy. The continuing resolution that is keeping the government running expires on December 16^th, and if Congress can’t extend it or come up with something new to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year, the American public might get a government shutdown from Santa this year. The Committee’s charge was supposed to be cutting $1.2 trillion from the deficit over the next 10 years. Instead, October 1, 2012 will see $1.2 trillion across-the-board spending cuts, effecting just about every administration, department, or other area of government. Defense spending will probably see the biggest cut, with a proposed slashing of $450 billion. That reduction in funds will leave United States ground forces at their lowest levels since 1940. In this age of terror and revolution in the Middle East, slashing funds for those who protect us while we sleep probably isn’t the smartest idea.

The payroll tax cuts are set to expire in less than a month (good thing everybody’s unemployed huh), along with the extension of unemployment insurance benefits. Some Republicans have proposed for a reforming of the unemployment benefit system, but with a hundred other things on Congress’ plate, God knows if that will happen. In addition, doctors receiving Medicare payments are about to be hit with a 25% cut to their reimbursement payments (so much for the fair and rational nature of ObamaCare). The Alternative Minimum Tax will also need to be addressed so middle class taxpayers aren’t absorbed by it, and the list of tax breaks to be extended, abolished, or patched up goes on.

As for agriculture, the Super Committee’s failure will mostly manifest itself in the 2012 Farm Bill. Initially, the structure of federal farm programs were to be included in the Super Committee’s cost cutting duties, so now we’re back to where we started. Pro-ag negotiators at the state level are trying to implement a new “shallow-loss” insurance program to help protect growers from financial losses due to weather or price fluctuations in the market, virtually doing away with the current federal payments institution. Without knowing the definite funds they will have to work with, it will be hard to implement anything to help America’s farmers and ranchers right now. We’ll have to wait and see how things progress in 2012.

In the end, the Super Committee proved what most all of us knew all along: if 535 people couldn’t come up with a practical solution for our nation’s debt crisis, what were the odds that 12 people were going to fix the problem? At the beginning of this article, I said that their failure was probably for the best, and I meant it. Having 12 people decide the fate of America’s economy and prosperity is about as un-American as anything we’ve seen yet. The Super Committee failed to reach an agreement on how to cut $1.2 trillion from the deficit, but God only knows what they would have come up with if they had devised a solution. That solution, in theory, would only have represented the populations of no more than 12 states. Shouldn’t the other 38 get a say as well? I believe so, and I think most of the country would agree with me. We might be back to square one, but at least my representatives and yours are all in that square together.

-Grace Boatright
National Grange Programs Assistant

Rural Americans Lose Again as FCC Report Halts AT&T/T-Mobile Merger

2011-12-02T11:01:00.000-08:00

On November 23, 2011, AT&T and Deutsche Telecom withdrew all applications for a merger before the Federal Communications Commission. AT&T made the decision to pull the applications when the FCC circulated a Staff Analysis which expressed a severely negative response to almost every argument AT&T made as to why this merger was a positive move for the public. The withdrawl of this merger will significantly delay the build-out of rural broadband. That’s right rural America; according to the FCC, broadband build-out in your area will happen just as fast, with or without this merger. That is their claim.

The FCC staff analysis claimed that the arguments which AT&T put forth with regard to expanding coverage from 80% to 97% would occur anyway due to competition. The assumption made by FCC staff, that market competition in these high-cost rural areas will drive private entities to make these investments on their own, is incredibly unsubstantiated. I would highly encourage FCC staff to explore this argument or at the very least back up these remarks with supporting data. As someone who speaks with my rural members daily, FCC staff must be either talking to a different pool of rural folks, or using a very different definition of “rural” to do their polling.

Our members suffer greatly from a digital divide that leaves them without affordable high-speed internet access, let alone competition which provides them choices of providers in their areas. Additionally, the rationale that build-out will happen anyway stands in direct conflict with every statement the FCC has put forth in the National Broadband Plan and its press releases over the last 2 years.

Two weeks ago, the FCC created a new $4.5 billion broadband fund and the National Grange celebrated this reform of the Universal Service Fund for dedicated broadband. What I find confusing is that the FCC claimed this investment in wireline broadband to 7 million new potential customers, would create “approximately 500,000 jobs and $50 billion in economic growth.” However, their staff report on the merger rejects the argument by AT&T that an investment of billions to deploy 4G mobile broadband service to 55 million more Americans over the next 6 years would help to create jobs. Does that mean that once again, it is okay for big government (armed with my tax dollars) to come in riding on the white horse of job creation, but when big business tries to do it somehow the increased commerce they create disappears?

After the Department of Justice came out in August and said they had questions about the merger, I should have been more realistic and negative about its outcome but I wanted to believe that it could happen. I wanted to believe that enterprise was still rewarded in this country. I just hope that a different tact might be taken by the FCC in future applications where we can let private companies serve our public, rather than continue to rely on government purse strings to open and fund their needs.

Nicole Palya Wood

National Grange Legislative Director

Talk is Cheap & Speculation is Cheaper

2011-11-18T12:01:00.000-08:00

The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, or as I like to call them- the Not So Super Committee, has until Wednesday of next week to finally submit their proposal for slashing $1.2 trillion from the nation’s 10-year deficit. As predicted by the media, most of Washington, and all 2^nd graders, things are not progressing well and the committee will most likely fail to produce a complete proposal by their aforementioned deadline. Conservatives have re-proposed the balanced budget amendment, and it will likely be taken up for a vote as early as today. However, most legislative activity has come to a screeching halt as legislators wait to see just what the Super Committee’s proposal will contain. In other words, they want to know just how little money they will be expected to work with once budget talks finally come to an end…or fail altogether…again. One such issue that has been placed on the backburner is the new 2012 Farm Bill. Though we don’t know what it will contain, there have been some pretty good clues and just about every interest group in the country has taken some kind of action to help swing things their way.

With the natural punctuality of Washington, the House and Senate Agriculture Committees missed a November 1^st deadline to make policy recommendations to the Super Committee. These recommendations would have specified how to cut their $23 billion from the farm bill. Then again, they had previously sent letters to the committee and some cuts seem inevitable anyway, such as direct cash payments to producers, which is supposed to save about $40 billion. What safety net will replace that isn’t so certain and numerous proposals have already been made in that regard. In response to the rumor about cuts to clean energy programs, renewable energy groups have already banned together to form the new Ag Energy Coalition. As these programs create jobs and help spur economic development, you would assume this isn’t a good time to lose them. Conservation programs and the nutrition title are also in the chopping block, but unlike the true agriculture titles, both can only be cut by a maximum of 2% under the agreement.

Going back to safety nets for producers, an interesting piece contained in the Super Committee’s draft bill is a new revenue insurance idea. It would grant producers more protection by installing a county-based standard to cover losses not insured by a producer’s personal crop insurance policy. However, those residing in larger counties with a different assortment of problems haven’t quite warmed up to this idea and are seeking more of an individualized, farm-based approach. These opponents will probably get their wish as this revenue program, according to the CBO, is too expensive if agriculture is to keep its other safety net programs and policies, such as countercyclical aid. Countercyclical aid is an economic term used to describe how government can sometimes affect certain industries by helping alleviate price demands when they go too high or spurring them when they go too low. It’s the government’s way of intervening on the business cycle.

So no definite measures have been taken regarding farm bill specifics, but just to add to everyone’s anxiety, there’s also the fact that many ag groups are hoping to attach the farm bill to the committee’s deficit reduction plan in order to avoid floor amendments. However, many interest groups are trying to do the same with many other pieces of legislation as well; making the line to see Santa pretty long this year. I’m predicting that these ag groups will have a better chance of getting heard thanks to Max Baucus. Baucus is a member of the Super Committee, sits on the Senate Agriculture Committee, is Chairman of the Finance Committee, and is from Montana- that’s about as influential as we could hope for these days. I included his legacy to Montana because like every past farm bill struggle, regional interests are as much an issue as federal interests and Montana is still very much a rural/agricultural state. In addition, it’s worth noting that aside from ranching, wheat is Montana’s most plentiful and profitable commodity. It’s also worth mentioning that rice, cotton, and wheat probably have the most to gain from countercyclical aid programs…but I’m not making predictions.

Overall, everything we hear should be taken with a grain of salt until the Super Committee finally releases its proposal for Congress to vote on. That vote is supposed to be taken in December but if the Super Committee doesn’t meet its deadline, that deadline will most likely be null and void as well. Farm bill specifics have been kept very secret thus far and I’m not betting on anything before next Wednesday.

P.S. Sorry about the lack of blogs the past couple of weeks. National Grange staff have been away at our annual 10-day Convention in Tulsa, OK. This blog officially represents my first collective thought since our return.

-Grace Boatright
National Grange Programs Assistant

All’s Fair in Love, War, and Currency Manipulation

2011-10-10T09:49:00.001-07:00

I’m sure most of you have heard about the controversy over China’s currency manipulation. This has become a difficult issue for many in Congress, especially the GOP, as they are torn between defending free-trade agreements and preventing more jobs from going overseas. There is currently a bill up for debate in the Senate which seeks to crack down on China’s currency practices, yet it is seeing mixed support on both sides of the aisle, and for good reason. On one hand, a standing pillar of free-market economies is their ability to conduct themselves free of government intervention and manipulation. On the other hand, states are losing thousands of jobs because manufacturers are sending business overseas where their goods can be made and distributed at a fraction of the price. This is a sticky subject, and one that deserves a closer look.

Economists and central banking experts have made millions writing books about how and why a country manipulates its currency, but I’ll do my best to give you a quick breakdown here. The why is simple: to keep their goods cheap to other countries so they will purchase them; stimulating the economy exporting the goods. The how is a bit more complicated. Before 1971, the global currency market operated on what is called a “fixed parity exchange rate system.” In this system, the value of all currencies was set in terms of the United States dollar, and the dollar was valued in terms of gold, aka- the gold standard. Back then, countries were banned by the IMF from changing their exchange rates by more than 10%. After 1971, the IMF changed the rules to say that countries were allowed to use any system of exchange they liked, either fixed or floating. However, they were “supposed to” follow certain “guidelines” for establishing the value of their currency. It gets increasingly complicated from there, but the key words to note are “supposed to” and “guidelines.” Currently, the IMF cannot order a country to change its currency; it can only survey a country’s practices and make suggestions. In other words, until the rules change (don’t expect that anytime soon), China isn’t doing anything technically illegal for which they can be reprimanded.

In addition, it must be said that while China’s currency manipulation is being deemed unfair, and it is definitely to an extreme at this point, it would also be unfair not to tell the whole story. In reality, China isn’t doing anything that other central banks, including our own, don’t do all the time. The Federal Reserve is exclusively in charge of controlling monetary policy and manipulating the value of the dollar is a major portion of that. Every central bank is structured differently and thus conducts itself in very different ways. For a quick example, one can actually buy stock in Brazil’s central bank while that is not an option in most other countries. Bottom line, currency exchange is not a perfect system and every country manipulates it to some extent. Nonetheless, China has abused this privilege to a point of recklessness and the U.S. should not continue tolerating such practices.

Yet here we are. Chinese goods are incredibly cheap, though artificially so, and in turn, our goods are too expensive for them to purchase. Here is where the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2011 (S.1619) comes in. The bill requires the Treasury Department to decide if a foreign currency is in “misalignment” and if so, begin a negotiation process with that country to correct the imbalance. However, don’t get too excited yet. Should that country refuse to negotiate, the most the United States could do is impose tariffs on those goods, or establish bans on the purchase of certain goods. China owns over $273 billion of U.S. debt, making a trade war very risky, and turning many in Washington off of the whole thing entirely. Nonetheless, in the last 10 years alone, an estimated 3 million jobs have been lost to China. With an unemployment rate over 9%, we cannot sit back and do nothing.

Even if S.1619 passes the Senate, it would likely get opposed by the House. While it could pass, it’s an issue that remains too sticky for some in Congress to confront. In their defense, the consequences of generating a hostile trading relationship with China could be adverse and counterproductive. The bill is being heard in the Senate today and we’ll see what happens if it makes it to the House. Either way, America’s best bet is to get this country back on its feet and regain some leverage with its most competitive trading partner. That isn’t impossible and I have every faith that we can and will prevail from this sticky situation.

-Grace Boatright

National Grange Programs Assistant

Hunting Goliath and Shooting David

2011-10-03T08:34:00.000-07:00

It seems that the agriculture sector and the Farm Bill in general have a mammoth target painted on their backs this year. One that in my opinion is larger than the share they deserve or can safely or feasibly survive. The President released a proposal last week that would cut a total of $600 billion from the Farm Bill titles. The Obama Administration’s plan would completely eliminate direct payments, drastically reduce crop insurance, and slash investment in conservation programs to the ring of $33 billion.

Government funding for farmers has for many years been illustrated by the three-legged stool; consisting of direct payments, counter-cyclical payments and crop insurance. This will not be the landscape of the new Farm Bill. Ham-strung by huge national deficits, the comprehensive piece of ag legislation is caught in the crossfire between a White House that won’t touch serious cuts to social program spending and a Republican House that is bound and determined to get the national debt drawn down.

Don’t get me or the rest of the ag-sector wrong. Farmers and ranchers are the first to step up and do more with less. The ADAP, STAX and ACRE proposals are all pieces of legislation brought to Congress by growers groups and legislators representing heavy ag districts, trying to do their part to reduce and reform spending in a smart way. The problem is proportionality.

Agriculture Reporter Jim Wiesemeyer published research last week that painted a very clear picture, even for someone like me who majored in Political Science and English and took Calculus twice. If we are to exclude tax policy changes, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the agriculture cuts that President Obama is asking for would account for 5.5 percent of all domestic spending cuts. Doesn’t seem so bad. Now compare it to the fact that not even half of 1 percent of federal domestic spending is devoted to ag programs in the first place.

You can call it fuzzy math or just plain bad policy to go after the one shining star in the economic black hole this country seems to find itself in. We have the world’s safest and cheapest food supply and this proposal hammers away at the very safety net that these farmers and ranchers rely on to stabilize their livelihoods and put food on our tables.

In 2009, the dairy industry suffered one of the worst ag catastrophies that this country has ever seen. The MILC program, which was established to protect small-scale farms, has failed miserably with nearly a third of all dairy farmers with less than 500 cows going out of business since the beginning of the program in 2001. The MILC program will offer even less cover for dairy farmers when the formula declines this year.

In 2011, we have seen hurricanes devastate regions that usually only have flooding due to heavy snow fall, not tropical storms. We have seen draughts so severe that entire aquaculture systems in lakes and rivers have been wiped out, not to mention the livestock and crops that rely on these watertables.

If we let these cuts occur at these levels, we do so at our own peril. The agriculture and ranching sectors are willing to do our part and tidy our financial house, but we cannot be expected to bear the brunt of other sectors deeply in need of a good fat-trimming.

-Nicole Palya Wood
National Grange Legislative Director

Brushing Up on Your ABCs

2011-09-16T14:46:00.000-07:00

Rural America is closer now than it’s ever been to finally obtaining high-speed broadband Internet. Tuesday, Sept. 13^th, the Congressional Rural Caucus held a briefing to bring together participating parties for a brief discussion about the status of the ABC (American’s Broadband Connectivity Plan) proposal and what we can do to bring this issue to fruition. Our National Grange Legislative Director, Nicole Palya Wood, represented the National Grange and rural America at large as the briefing’s only advocacy group. Other participants included the Western Telecommunications Alliance, Windstream, and USTelecom. Together, they have been working to speed the deployment of high-speed Internet to rural America. America’s Broadband Connectivity Plan, the proposal sent to and currently under revision by the Federal Communications Commission, seeks to deploy broadband Internet to more than 4 million Americans dwelling in rural areas. The FCC has made clear that the proposal is just starting point for further negotiations, but the fact that they are taking it seriously is a vast improvement for an issue that has stretched for nearly a decade. Naturally, with any prolonged debate, certain parties have arrived on the scene to object. In this case, the objecting party is state governments, who feel that the terms of the ABC steps on their toes and relinquishes them of too much authority.

The states’ objection rests mostly in the issue of intercarrier compensation. Intercarrier compensation refers to how companies pay one another to exchange traffic on their networks. For example, if a Verizon (large company) customer makes a call to a small rural town in the middle of nowhere Texas, they are going to have to transfer that call to the town’s local provider (small company) in order to complete that call because Verizon does not offer service in that area. I know most of us think of cell phone service as being this complex, matrix-like, space station, signal going to a satellite and bouncing back to earth system, but the above example actually happens all the time. In the past, the fee that companies charge each other for this service has ranged from tenths of a penny all the way to 35 cents, depending on the company and where the call is being transferred. However, the terms of the ABC proposal would establish a flat fee of $0.0007 per minute for all calls. Herein lies the primary complaint of the states.

Historically, and legally, states have had the authority to determine these intrastate rates, while the FCC oversees interstate rates. States were granted this authority under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. America’s Broadband Connectivity Plan, they say, both cuts into their legal authority and will significantly reduce the revenue that small local companies generate to serve remote locations, a cost that will inevitably be transferred to the consumer. Yes, the states will lose some authority should this proposal pass, but according to Robert Mayer of USTelecom, state mandates can actually have unintended adverse consequences and “impede free-market forces by distorting economic signals, adding unnecessary costs for services.” Intrastate rates are one such unnecessary cost, as is the cost of being a “carrier of last resort,” another complaint by the states. ABC would also eliminate these “carrier of last resort” obligations, which require that companies who receive funding from the Universal Service Fund provide phone service to any customer who requests it. Yes, the proposal would eliminate such requirements, but it would also free those funds for the greater goal of bringing broadband to everyone more efficiently and effectively than those obligated companies ever could.

These are just a few of several objections to the ABC proposal and I’m sure more are to come as relevant parties further review this issue. Nonetheless, it’s a good plan that works to bring Internet to a group that has historically been sent to the back of the bus. Never before have so many groups, both large urban carriers and smaller rural companies, been at the table in agreement with such great momentum and consensus. Let’s just hope that everyone can settle their differences and workout a compromise to ensure that this most relevant issue does not get punted by the FCC for another 10 years.

-Grace Boatright

National Grange Program Assistant

Whose job are we talking about?

2011-09-09T10:40:00.001-07:00

Personally, the President’s jobs speech last night left me, well…speechless. His proposal, named the American Jobs Act, is set to spend an additional $450 billion on the exact same programs that didn’t work with the last $859 billion stimulus package. I repeat- an additional $450 billion!! What I found particularly irritating was his insistence (he said it 6 times to be exact) that Congress pass this bill “right away.” Don’t read it, don’t nitpick, just trust me and pass it seemed to be his attitude. In that same tone, the President did his best to appeal to Republicans by repeating numerous times that the bill would not add to the deficit and that it contained an abundance of spending cuts. Overall, it was very apparent that this was indeed a speech about jobs- his job. Nobody could blame the President for trying to get his numbers up (currently, the President’s approval ratings stands at an all-time low of 44%), but asking American taxpayers to tack on another $450 billion to our almost $15 trillion debt is certainly not the way to accomplish that task.

There seem to be three main parts to Obama’s new proposal, intended to give a “jolt to a stalled economy.” The first is an extension of unemployment benefits. What the President doesn’t seem to understand is that the American people don’t want handouts. While an extension of these benefits will help a bit, most of the unemployed aren’t complaining about their unemployment benefits; they’re complaining that they don’t have the option to get off of them. The same concept goes for the extension of payroll tax cuts. Common sense should indicate that if you’re not on anyone’s payroll, saving money on your payroll taxes isn’t going to help. The third one, my personal favorite, is his proposal for infrastructure improvements. Yes, there are plenty of roads and highways that could use some sprucing up, but who are those projects going to help most? You guessed it- labor unions. Mr. President, if there’s one group whose vote you still have- it’s the labor unions. You can stop soliciting them now.

At least the President can acknowledge that the economy is still in a terrible state. Everyone else in charge of ensuring our economic health is insisting things are getting better and that the U.S. will not be dipping into another recession. Frankly, when they talk about “another” recession, I can’t help but chuckle. Let’s ask that guy who’s been out of work for nearly two years whether or not he can tell the difference from where the last recession ended and where this looming one is to begin. For most folks, the recession of 2008 never ended. They’re out of work, their homes have been foreclosed, their cars have been repossessed, the bills keep piling up, and they’re living with relatives in an effort to save what little money they can get. But don’t worry- according to the Fed, the economy actually expanded in all of their 12 banking regions in August; as opposed to shrinking numbers in June and July. Wow, I feel better already. You know the Fed/Treasury is paranoid about economic numbers when they start showcasing their weekly findings; as if four weeks could really be used as a forecast for the next 5 years of economic activity.

If insanity is defined as repeating the same action over and over again and expecting a different result, then it’s pretty obvious to me that the President’s strategy for stimulus is pretty insane. We already spent $859 billion dollars on a strategy that didn’t work, is it really wise to spend another $450 billion doing the exact same thing? The American Jobs Act, while it might do some good, seems more aimed at increasing the President’s numbers before he gets hot and heavy on the campaign trail. The President continued that trail this morning with a speech at the University of Richmond to promote his new bill. But the question lingers- what exactly is the President promoting here- his bill or himself?

-Grace Boatright
National Grange Program Assistant

No More Chores for Little Johnny if the Department of Labor Gets Its Way

2011-09-02T08:47:00.001-07:00

The Labor Department has just proposed a revision to current child labor laws, specifically for children who work on farms. The proposal would ban individuals under the age of 18 from working with animals, handling pesticides, working in timber operations, manure pits, grain elevators, feed lots, livestock auctions, and other areas on a farm the DOL has deemed “unsafe” for children. By law, they could not participate in the cultivation, harvesting, and curing of tobacco and those under age 16 would be banned from operating power-driven farm equipment; aka, tractors, shredders, farm trucks, combines, ATVs, etc. Looking at this long list of don’ts, I’m not sure what else is left for them to help with.

“Children employed in agriculture are some of the most vulnerable workers in America,” according to Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. Ask any kid who grew up on a farm and they’ll probably laugh at this statement, as would oil drillers, king crab fishermen, policemen, firemen and other individuals whose daily work could literally result in death at any moment. The new urgency to reform child labor laws as it applies to farms is a result of recent grain elevator accidents. According to Purdue University, there were 26 deaths arising from grain elevators in 2010. Unfortunately, six of these fatalities involved individuals under the age of 16. This new campaign to reform the way children contribute to farm work is biased and narrow-minded at best. On average, 300 children under the age of 5 drown each year in swimming pools (Swimming Pools). I don’t recall a government campaign to ban swimming pools, do you?

Though irrelevant to some, this is no small matter for America’s farming families. For many family farms, children constitute a large portion of their workforce. Banning them from participating in the daily operations of a working farm will dramatically increase the cost of labor for small farmers as they are forced to hire farmhands over the age of 18. The DOL has tried to get around this aspect by saying the proposals would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents. However, all said proposals would still apply to farms and ranches owned by grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, neighbors, family friends, etc. In other words, it’s a paperwork crisis waiting to happen, and will boil down to whose name is on the mortgage/deed. Farmers are already bogged down with paperwork and regulations, they certainly do not need it generating from within their own households.

This is yet another example of the government playing baby-sitter and over-stepping its boundaries. Unfortunately, accidents will happen and tragedies will occur. It’s just the world we live in. Proposals such as this are costly, unnecessary, time-consuming and infringes on one’s right to conduct business as they see fit. At this rate of government intervention, there’s going to be a new regulation every time someone stubs a toe.

-Grace Boatright

National Grange Programs Assistant

“Swimming Pools”. 1 September, 2011. http://www.injuryinformation.com/accidents/swimming-pools.php

No Lack of Diversity in Unemployment Lines

2011-08-26T09:25:00.001-07:00

Last week, President Obama continued to display his transparent lack of connection with the struggles of everyday Americans when he issued yet another unfunded mandate, I mean Executive Order, to enforce diversity hiring in the Federal Government’s army of employees. Anyone who takes a second to stand on the corner of Federal Triangle here in D.C. would be remiss in not noticing the cornucopia of skin colors, age groups, and gender of those with Federal I.D. badges. This is not a problem in need of an executive order and it definitely should not be on a President’s priority list who has sustained over 9 percent unemployment for the balance of his tenure in office.

In the Executive Order, Mr. Obama talks about the obligations of the Federal Government as the nation’s largest employer. You can actually stop right there if you want to. I am thinking this a catastrophic sign that the world promoter of capitalism has more employees working for the government than they do by any other major private company. Apple may have more money than Exxon these days, but even they are smart enough to only have 50,000 employees. Hiring workers costs money and when the Federal Government does it, you and I pay that bill with our taxes. The average American wants to pay their local businessman for services, not a federal agency that their tax money is already funding. While the Federal Government continues to usurp new business and service sectors, it pushes out the private sector jobs and increases our tax burden.

Eight months ago, I sat and listened to Mr. Obama’s State of the Union address. It was riddled with mandates for Americans to rekindle their entrepreneurial spirit, and “out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world.” I liked the speech. What I haven’t liked is the follow-up. The regulatory agencies who are constantly cranking out needless restrictions and requirements for our small businesses must have been listening to a different speech because it has been business as usual for them here in D.C. How about some incentives from the government that actually help small business innovate, educate and build, rather than regulations that choke and bind every day operations? It is downright impossible for small business owners to invest in innovation or hiring new workers regardless of their color or sex, when those funds have to be used on regulatory compliance.

Let’s look at some numbers as of July 2011. Total number of unemployed Americans: 13.9 million. Additional number of Americans forced to work part-time or reduced hours due to cut backs: 8.4 million. Those who are unemployed but haven’t looked for a job in the last 4 weeks for one reason or another: 2.8 million. Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates were: adult men (9.0 percent), adult women (7.9 percent), teenagers (25.0 percent), whites (8.1 percent), blacks (15.9 percent), and Hispanics (11.3 percent). The jobless rate for Asians was 7.7 percent (U.S. BLS, 8/5/11). This tells me that there are more blacks without jobs than whites, but more whites without jobs than Asians, and 25 percent of our x-box generation can’t get a job period. There is no lack of diversity in this data, nor in the unemployment lines. The complexion of our great nation’s unemployed is not one divided by race and creed but unified by hopelessness and fear. Americans aren’t scared of not getting a promotion, they’re terrified of not having a job to begin with.

Mr. President, I dare say your priorities are skewed. Prioritizing diversity in the Federal workplace over focusing on creating more total jobs for all Americans, makes about as much since to me as checking my smoke detectors before Hurricane Irene hits tonight, instead of boarding up windows and gathering sandbags.

-Nicole Palya Wood

National Grange Legislative Director

First Come First Serve…So Hurry Up!

2011-08-19T07:26:00.000-07:00

Remember as a kid on Halloween when you were dressed and ready to go but your little brother was still getting ready? All you could think about was how the candy was going to be gone by the time you got to trick-or-treating and it was going to be all his fault. Unfortunately, American farmers are in a very similar situation, except the little brother is Congress and the candy is global market share for U.S. farming exports. The debt ceiling debate took up so much time the last couple months that few other issues have been addressed by Congress. One such issue is the delay of passage of free trade agreements between the United States and Columbia, Panama, and South Korea. All three agreements contribute roughly $13 billion to the United States economy per year and in our absence, other countries such as Canada are starting to swoop in and usurp that additional market share.

Trading status with Columbia has especially become a concern, as they import 97% of their wheat supply, and traditionally from the U.S. However, in less than three years American share of that market has dwindled from 70% to 45%. Everyone should find this extra frustrating because the FTA with Columbia that has yet to pass contains a provision to eliminate 80% of tariffs on U.S. goods. Because we are no longer taking up that market share, Canada has developed its own FTA with Columbia and should begin exercising that agreement within the next month. Their entrance into the market will drop U.S. market share by an additional 50% or more. According to the U.S. Wheat Associates, U.S. wheat growers could lose over $100 million in annual wheat sales because of the delay in re-implementing our free trade agreement with Columbia.

The South Korean and Panama FTAs are having an adverse effect on U.S. exports as well. South Korea purchased nearly $190 million worth of products from Montana alone last year. This was a 141% increase from the previous year (imagine where business could go if trade agreements were stable). Consequently, Asian nations have recently been seeking to improve their trade relations between each other in an attempt to reduce partnerships with the U.S., whose reputation as a consistent trading partner is quickly dissolving. China is already South Korea’s number one trading partner and there are discussions currently in the mix to increase that trading volume. Panama had doubled its American imports in the last five years, but it is now doing more business with Canada and Europe, whose products are cheaper than tariff-heavy U.S. goods. All of this could be remedied if Congress would just hurry up and pass the FTAs that have been waiting on the shelf for months.

So what’s the holdup? For starters, the debt ceiling debate took twice as long as everybody anticipated and only fueled the political gridlock that embodies Washington these days. Second, House Republicans and Senate Democrats have yet to reach an agreement regarding the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. TAA is a spending program that works to retrain Americans who have lost their jobs due to increased imports or from companies moving labor operations overseas to cheaper facilities and less restrictive labor conditions. The continuation of TAA had originally been strapped to South Korea’s FTA and Republicans are objecting, saying there should be a stand-alone vote to extend the program. The measure is scheduled to be addressed in September when Congress returns from recess, but if it receives Washington’s usual hospitality, god only knows when it will actually pass.

In the end, the holdup on FTAs comes down to Washington’s usual problem: a lack of bipartisanship and political unrest. Canada and other countries are more than happy to soak up what we’re not using and who could blame them. With a potential $13 billion to be had, you’d be a fool not to act on that opportunity. Congress needs to get home, shake off its debt ceiling dizzy spell and get U.S. farmers back in a position to compete. Let’s just hope they do it before all the good markets are gone.

-Grace Boatright

National Grange Programs Assistant

Paying Twice for Overregulation

2011-08-11T14:15:00.000-07:00

It is tough to pick a place to start in highlighting the egregious volume of regulations coming out of Washington these days. From the Environmental Protection Agency to the Department of Transportation, the regulatory agencies seem to be bursting at the seams with overachievers and devote followers of the church of “more is better.” If it’s not the DOT calling for commercial drivers licenses for farm tractor operators (which even those of us inside the beltway think is laughable), it is the EPA requiring dairy farmers to draft and file exhaustive spill plans due to the fact that milk contains oils. Yes, this was a knee-jerk reaction to oil spills and they are serious about it.

Two weeks ago, Congressman Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) and Congressman Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.) sent a letter to (EPA) urging the administrator to reconsider this proposed regulation and over 100 members of Congress from across the country signed it. My question is why aren’t there 435 names on that letter? Does anyone really believe that this is a problem wreaking so much havoc that we have to spend millions to implement and even more to have our farmers and ranchers comply with it?

That in itself makes me angry, but I was reminded today of another insult we all suffer in silence and servitude. As a policy professional, I am constantly looking at regulation from the perspective of weighing the good and bad and searching for the balance between the intent of the regulation, the protection it seeks to provide, and the cost of compliance with those regulated. What I forget is that before any regulation is even passed, I am paying for each employee to come to work, have healthcare, earn retirement, etc. My taxes pay for these regulatory anomalies throughout the drafting, comment and vetting period, where, in other sectors of the world, these ideas would be highlighted on “News of the Weird.”

In the Cost of Government Report, published this week by the American for Tax Reform Foundation, they highlighted that over the last year “15 out of 18 federal agencies” have expanded their payrolls. If you combine that with the 2010 USA Today study that found the average federal salary exceeded private sector comparative salaries in 83 percent of industries, it is no wonder that our government is so big and so costly. Additionally, when you raise the budgets of regulatory agencies, which have actually more than doubled since 2000, the cost of goods and services goes up. This is proven as reported in yet another study by the Phoenix Center (April 2011). The study reported that the expansion of federal regulator budgets led to decreased economic growth and private sector job losses. According to the study, “a 5 percent reduction in the regulator budgets would increase GDP by $376 billion and expand employment by 6.2 million jobs over five years.”

So first I have to pay for regulators to increase regulations. Then, I have to pay to comply with the regulations that they have created, regardless of how unnecessary, and while I’m coughing up all of this tax and compliance money, I am in turn contributing to the economic downturn and the reduction of American jobs. Free enterprise and a revolt against unfair taxes built this country and I strongly believe that they will be the bootstraps that we grab to navigate us safely through the regulatory mire that strangles our economy. However, we must continue to let the sunlight in and expose these agencies and their overreaching agendas…our jobs depend on it.

-Nicole Palya Wood

National Grange Legislative Director

What’s a Rotary Dial?

2011-08-09T09:07:00.001-07:00

Rural America may soon be immersed in Facebook, Hulu, and Skype like the rest of us. As of last Friday, AT&T, CenturyLink, FairPoint, Frontier, Verizon, and Windstream submitted a proposal to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to speed broadband deployment to those residing in rural areas; roughly 4 million people. The proposal, called America’s Broadband Connectivity Plan, is highly complementary to the FCC’s own National Broadband Plan, which seeks to improve broadband access throughout the nation. Together, the federally-operated FCC and private-sector broadband companies will work for a faster, smoother transition to a world where everyone can enjoy high-speed, broadband internet.

Both plans share the mutual goals of modernizing the Universal Service Fund (USF) without increasing its size and reforming the Intercarrier Compensation (ICC) system to eventually phase down charges between companies for handling traffic, benefitting both company and consumer. Modernizing the USF entails transitioning it over a 5-year period to focus exclusively on broadband development, giving virtually all Americans access to it, while also avoiding an increase in its $4.5 billion cost. Specifically, the proposal would priotritize the USF on targeting broadband development in regions where there is no incentive for private companies to begin providing services. Reforming the ICC would mean implementing, over a period of 5 to 8 years, a standard $0.0007 per minute intercarrier charge. In addition, rules and access rates would be updated to wash out the arbitrage scams that waste FCC resources and ultimately cost the consumer more money.

This probably means very little to those residing in urban areas where broadband internet has been available for years at affordable rates. However, many people living in America’s heartland are still without access to high-speed internet. In Kansas alone, roughly 8.3% of the state’s total population lives without broadband internet, and that number jumps to an alarming 28.1% in rural areas (Salina Journal). It is vital to the future of rural areas that they gain access to broadband. According to the White House; “With new or increased broadband access, communities can compete on a level playing field to attract new businesses, schools can create distance learning opportunities, medical professionals can provide cost-efficient remote diagnoses and care, and business owners can expand the market for their products beyond their neighborhoods to better compete in the global economy.”

However, some in rural communities are distraught over the new proposal, claiming that without federal support, their local rural telephone companies will cease to exist. Unfortunately, this is the pain of progress. The old-school, copper landline, rotary-dial days are over, and wireless, high-speed broadband internet is the future (in fact, I don’t mind telling you I’ve never actually used a rotary dial- keep in mind I was born in 1989). Incidentally, according to a study by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, those ages 70-75 have increased internet usage more than any other age group since 2005; showing that internet isn’t just for the young and tech-savvy but is something that can benefit those of all age groups and walks of life (Senior Journal). The conversion from copper landlines to wireless internet will be a significant and slightly complicated one, but buggy repair shops went out of business too and today nobody would think twice about that. I firmly believe that some day in the future, everyone will feel the same about landline telephones. What America’s Broadband Connectivity Plan works to do is make that transition as efficient and cost-effective as possible; giving rural Americans affordable access to phone, VoIP, and internet.

In the last 24 hours alone, I’ve used the internet to pay credit card bills, shoe shop, download music, exchange emails with my mother, find a recipe for snicker doodles, Skype with my little brother, and look up when my dry cleaning will be ready. These are all conveniences made possible by wireless, broadband internet. Soon, those residing in rural areas will be afforded these amazing modern conveniences as well. However, even more than cookies and dry cleaning, rural America will be given the necessary resources to stay current and competitive in today’s market place, giving everyone across the country an equal opportunity to thrive and prosper.

-Grace Boatright

National Grange Programs Assistant

The Debt Ceiling Oligarchy

2011-08-02T10:47:00.000-07:00

An agreement has finally been reached within Congress to ensure the nation avoids a default on its debt. Debates on both House Speaker Boehner’s proposal and Senate Leader Reid’s bill never really occurred. But rather than getting into the details of the measure that finally passed, the most shocking thing about the debt ceiling debate is that there was NO DEBATE. If House Leader Boehner were successful in whipping enough votes to get his bill called up, it would have been the first time the issue of raising the debt ceiling had been brought to the floor for a traditional debate in this Congress. Senate Leader Reid didn’t even try to debate his package.

Over the years, Washington has grown accustomed to congressional stalemate; however, this crisis has brought forth an unconventional, perhaps even unconstitutional, method in which both parties have left the American legislative process all but abandoned.

To the public, there have been 6 major players in the debt ceiling debate; Speaker Boehner, House Minority Leader Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader McConnell, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, and President Obama. Their fellow representatives have all but been left out of discussions. Senator Mike Lee of Utah stated; “To negotiate a deal under cover of darkness, behind closed doors and then come in at the final hour, just as what happened a few months ago with the continuing resolution [to avert a government shutdown], and say, ‘Here’s the deal. It’s prebaked. You take it, or you leave it.’ It’s terrible, and it’s got to stop.”

The traditional, democratic approach to constructing and passing legislation would require that a representative first draft a bill, after which it is introduced on the floor and referred to a committee of jurisdiction. There it is considered, discussed, reviewed, and if approved, put on the legislative calendar, and then brought to the floor for a fair and honest debate. Speaker Boehner acknowledged that much of this process has been left out of the current situation; “the truth is, much of the work of committees has been co-opted by the leadership. In too many instances, we no longer have legislators; we just have voters.” What the Speaker failed to address is by leaving representatives out of discussions, it is really those they represent who are silenced.

Maybe Congress needs to take a lesson from the states. Having worked in 2 state capitols and actively lobbied in 10, I have yet to see a chamber floor that is not abuzz with activity. The floor of the senate and house chamber of a state capitol is the grand stage and marketplace for laws to be debated, votes swapped and policy created. For those of us with a passion for the process, it is a sacred meeting ground with a tenable, contagious energy and definitely not one that can be replaced by a handful of elected leaders sitting around a table at the White House on a Sunday afternoon in sportcoats.

Larry Sabato is a Professor and Director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics who was on Fox News this past week talking about the debt ceiling debate. I don’t always agree with Larry but he is extremely bright and this morning highlighted a really good point. No one is debating this issue other than the pundits, and the pundits “couldn’t win a local election for dogcatcher.” The elected officials are there to carry the voter water and so far, they haven’t been given much of a chance. It doesn’t matter if the legislator is a green freshman Tea-party republican or an institutional social-program-obsessed democrat, they were sent by their constituents to be a mouthpiece and debate legislation. The gang of six have been given their chance and their progress on the debt ceiling was slow and painful. Let some outside debate and new ideas in. After all, the last time I checked the United States Legislative system was not intended to be an Oligarchy.

-Nicole Palya Wood
National Grange Legislative Director

The Things NOT Lost in Translation

2011-07-22T10:16:00.001-07:00

Yesterday, I had the honor of giving a presentation to a group of women and men who work in rural and agricultural development in China. Their trip to the United States was orchestrated by the State Department and their itinerary was extensive; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Commerce, etc. As I prepared my speech, I read over their impressive biographies. The National Grange’s guests were leaders in their field; professors of economic development, heads of provinces, and rural poverty experts. I needed to do my homework or risk underwhelming this group to the edge of tears and exposing the National Grange as a joke.

I talked about the history of the National Grange and the role it has played in helping to form the agricultural landscape today and mold the ideal rural community. I used real-time examples of how our contributions to Rural Free Delivery in the late 19^th and early 20^th century mirror those that we are advocating for currently with regard to the AT&T/T-Mobile merger and broadband build-out. Basically, the critical role that connectivity plays in the livelihood and competitiveness of rural Americans.

I finished my presentation and the Q&A began. We discussed organic farming and how to keep the balance between both organic and production farming. I was then asked a series of questions that all seemed to be the same. The questions came clear enough through my earpiece but I did not get the point until the translator explained it to me.

The young economists were trying to grasp the idea of a policy advocate and why we were necessary. The question had nothing to do with the price of organic farming, but clearly the evolutionary concept of an intermediary or lobbyist like myself, whose sole profession was to advocate a position. I explained that I, like other government relations professionals, are merely conduits for the members of our organizations, who are given directives from our members working in the field and have hands-on knowledge of the legislative fixes and regulatory changes needed.

And then it hit me.

We live and work in a society that not only allows but also imposes a responsibility on our citizens to engage in their governments, both local and national. The concept of policy trickling up from the classes rather than being handed down was truly a foreign concept. In China, policy is handed down from centralized government and then implemented by local provincial leaders. In China, there is no use for lobbyists.

At this point, I came to what I have now, in retrospect, deemed my international diplomatic void. I think even the translator from the U.S. State Department was eager to hear how I responded. I controlled my inner freedom-fighter and responded in the only way that I knew how. I found middle ground in the fact that my guests and I had similar purposes. They too are given directives and paid to implement them. The only difference is that my policy is developed by my members, and theirs is applied to their members. I did not elaborate on this huge continental divide of application. I did however think about it for the rest of day. Some things are NOT lost in translation.

-Nicole Palya Wood

National Grange Legislative Director

Bend or Break: Congressional Stalemate.

2011-07-01T09:18:00.000-07:00

Remember in school when the teacher would assign the class a problem to work through for the next 45 minutes while he or she left to go back to their office for some reason (god knows what that reason was; my speculations are not pretty). Most of the class would goof off, talking about anything but the homework assignment at hand, three or four people would make lame attempts at resolution, but inevitably one kid would end up doing all of the work. When the teacher came back nothing was resolved, everybody was in trouble (including that one good kid…sorry buddy) and nothing was learned. No matter the discipline techniques imposed by the teacher, he or she just couldn’t inspire the students into finishing their work. This situation, unfortunately, seems to adequately reflect Congress’ performance over the last six months.

During this time, every issue taken up by Congress has resulted in absolute stalemate. Only 18 bills have become law since the 112^th Congress convened and 15 of those named buildings after people. The entire month of June has seen only 17 Senate votes, with half of those being nominations or cloture motions. Come August 2^nd the government will default on its $14.4 trillion national debt; a guaranteed global financial crisis of armageddon proportions. Unemployment still stands above 9%, with the unemployment rate having risen in 210 metro cities in May. It should also be said that the 9% unemployment rate does not include those who have dropped out of the labor market, those who have taken a substantial pay cut just to stay employed, or teenagers looking for summer work. Though upset over President Obama’s handling of the situation in Libya, House GOP members couldn’t gather enough votes to stop funding for the unconstitutional endeavor. And the list goes on.

I suppose with this huge mess, it’s no shock that Congress’ approval rating stands at a very depressing 17%. Even former Representative Artur Davis stated; “I don’t think there’s a single person in the United States who thinks that Congress is working right now.” It seems every effort to negotiate a budget deal, or any deal for that matter, ends with one party blaming the other for the general lack of action. “There’s a sense that the partisanship is worse than it’s ever been,” Davis continued. Even the President has participated in the blame game; yesterday comparing GOP lawmakers to his two school-aged daughters. “They’re in one week, out one week, then saying, ‘Obama’s got to step in.’ You need to be here. I’ve been here doing Afghanistan, bin Laden, the Greek crisis. You stay here. Let’s get it done.”

What I don’t understand is why Congress has begun whining that President Obama isn’t doing anything to assist their discussions. Since when does Congress rely so heavily on the President’s assistance in order to legislate? I thought our nation was conducted on a system of checks and balances, with each branch being a self-sufficient entity, capable of carrying their own load. This lack of trust and cohesion among Congressional members is growing increasingly ridiculous to the American people, who in their daily lives manage to coexist with people they redeem unreasonable. Congress should try the same.

The feelings of disapproval among the American people seem deeper now than they have ever been. The financial collapse occurred in 2008. It’s now 2011 and conditions do not appear to be improving. The American people are broke, tired, and growing increasingly frustrated with the group of men and women they sent to Washington to fix the problem. The Senate has decided to cut short their usual 4^th of July break to continue working on the possible default situation. Personally, I believe being financially sound is the greatest form of independence. It’s what our forefathers were fighting for- the right to prosper. Perhaps Congress should focus on the reason for the 4^th of July celebration and stop acting like high school kids left alone in the classroom.

-Grace Boatright

National Grange Programs Assistant

United States Postal Service – Don’t Sink but Don’t Swim

2011-06-24T12:30:00.001-07:00

On Wednesday, June 22, the Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform introduced a bill to restructure the United States Postal Service. Chairman Darrell Issa-CA, who authored this measure, assured its passage was necessary to “prevent another taxpayer bailout.” Included in this massive overhaul, (aka: robust list of new regulations), is a mandated decrease in delivery schedule, which the USPS welcomes but no fix to either of the major fiscal impediments that have crippled the soundness of the entity for the last 20 years.

Current mandates require the USPS to make pre-payments on retiree health benefits each year, which costs the organization about $5.5 billion annually. Additionally, the USPS has requested access to the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal Employee Retirement System, overpayments which are estimated at almost $7 billion. Yes, money they have overpaid, that the Federal Government is telling them they can’t have back. Kind of like a bank refusing you access to your savings account while they gain interest and hedge the liquidity. If you look at the car industry which got bailed out at lightning pace, these organizations even had their own banks.

On another note, the USPS does not receive a single tax dollar for operating expenses which came as a shock to me. You would think that if the government regulated you as stringently as they do the USPS, that the organization would get some benefits. I don’t even want to go down the path of how a Postal Service collapse would affect the economy. Currently it is the 2^nd largest U.S. government employer providing jobs to 7 million employees and generating $1 trillion of revenue annually.

The USPS is indeed predicted to run out of money as early as October of this year, and has already announced that it will suspend the biweekly payment to the Federal Employee Retirement Fund, of $115 million today. Yet, in a statement issued by the USPS in response to Issa’s bill, they strongly opposed a provision that would provide for an additional $10 in U.S. Treasury borrowing. “The Postal Service does not need to incur additional cost—we need the money back that is already owed to us.”

Proponents of the legislation believe that the USPS needs more regulatory oversight, while the agency says it needs the ability to respond to changes in the industry in a business-like fashion. Many companies lose market-share as the USPS has in volume, but unlike the private sector, the USPS is shackled in their ability to shrink and hedge operations, debt, labor costs and overhead. It’s like asking yourself why animals raised in captivity can’t compete in the wild…because they never had to.

Big changes are coming for the USPS, make no mistake. My charge for lawmakers as they restructure is to keep in mind that the reason they are unable to compete now and therefore react to massive volume decrease and a deluge of pension withdrawal is due to the same over-regulation and bureaucratic training wheels that this body thought was imperative 20 years ago. We cannot continue to speak with forked tongue, telling the USPS to keep their head above water, while also regulating them not to swim.

-Nicole Palya Wood

National Grange Legislative Director

From Salmon to Subsidies: the New 2012 Ag Bill

2011-06-17T11:12:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the House approved and passed the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2012, also known as the FY 12 Agriculture Appropriations bill. The bill, which funds the Department of Agriculture and all its related agencies, passed the House with a vote of 217-203. When all was said and done, the bill totals $125.5 billion in discretionary spending and mandatory funding, and in tune with Republican’s goal of cutting spending, is $7 billion less than the President’s request. Nineteen Republicans voted against the bill, including Ron Paul (TX), Justin Amash (MI), Walter Jones (NC) and Jeff Flake (AZ). Representative Flake made a gutsy move yesterday when he offered an amendment to strip funding for MAP, the Market Access Program, which carries an investment return of $35 for every dollar spent. However, the amendment was strongly opposed by several in the House including Ag Committee Chairman Frank Lucas.

While I was pleased to see it pass the House, and without Flake’s amendment, there were some items included, and not included, that I find disappointing and bizarre. Let’s begin with the disappointing. Although the bill cuts discretionary spending by $2.7 billion compared to last year’s amount, it also increases non-discretionary spending by $3 billion. The press release issued by the House yesterday failed to mention that part (shocker). So Republicans can claim that they cut spending compared to Obama’s request, but in the end that’s not entirely the case.

The bizarre, but not necessarily bad, attributes to the bill include salmon, abortion pills, breastfeeding, and school lunches. As ordained by the bill, the FDA will be prevented from approving genetically engineered salmon. The FDA was set to reach a decision on this controversial issue, which would have been the first time the government approved genetically-modified animals for human consumption. Another amendment to the bill blocks any funding for mifepristone (RU-486), also known as the abortion pill. The bill also did away with the USDA’s new school-lunch standards, which included eliminating junk food in school vending machines. The USDA will now have to re-write their rules and hope for better things down the road. One such thing might be First Lady Michelle Obama’s new “Plate Program,” which replaces the food pyramid with a well-balanced meal, or “plate,” to include protein, dairy, fruits, vegetables, and grains. Last on the list of the bizarre, the bill assigns very specific budget requirements to the WIC Peer Counseling Program, a program that encourages and assists the underprivileged in breastfeeding their children. The text of the bill states; “not less than $75,000,000 shall be used for breastfeeding peer counselors and other related activities, and not less than $7,500,000 shall be used for breastfeeding performance awards.”

However, programs like MAP and FMD, Foreign Market Development, remain fully funded from last year’s levels; MAP at $200 million and FMD at $34.5 million. Farming subsidies also were left alone, and farmers making over $250,000 will still be eligible for such subsidies. The House is by no means the bill’s final destination; however, and the Senate is scheduled to take up the matter in July. We’ll have to wait and see what weird and wonderful things the Senate will come up with.

- Grace Boatright

National Grange Programs Assistant

A Small Step in the Right Direction

2011-06-11T07:43:00.000-07:00

Rural America received some well-deserved recognition in Washington yesterday when President Obama signed an Executive Order establishing the White House Rural Council. The council, to be chaired by the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, will concentrate on strengthening rural economies. The President stated in the text of his formal Executive Order that rural America, while facing numerous challenges, has “enormous economic potential,” and that the federal government “has an important role to play in order to expand access to the capital necessary for economic growth…” Overall, this is incredibly good news for Americans dwelling in rural areas, roughly 16% of the total population and undoubtedly a segment that has been overlooked in the past. While the details of the council’s duties and authority are still unveiling, the fact that the Obama Administration has taken a specific interest in rural America and the issues they face is an excellent step in the right direction.

A press release sent out by the White House yesterday listed the key factors the council intends to focus on in order to help the rural economy. They are as follows: jobs creation and training, expanding markets for agriculture, access to credit, promoting the expansion of biofuel production, healthcare, education, broadband, infrastructure, and the ecosystem market. While all of these are important for rural Americans, the two that caught my eye immediately were increasing rural American’s access to credit and broadband internet. Personally, I feel that if these two were given special attention, the rest of the list would be much easier to tend to.

Broadband internet could completely revolutionize the way rural America operates and would provide them with the tools they need to remain competitive in today’s market place. A recent article in the Washington Times by our own National Master, Ed Luttrell, addressed this fact as well; “Access to the Internet can make agricultural businesses more efficient and give them access to a great number of customers. For businesses operating in remote areas, reliable Internet access is crucial to the growth and prosperity of the enterprise, which, ultimately, provides jobs within the community.” It’s a chain effect from there; internet is established, businesses have the means to thrive, jobs are created, infrastructure begins to grow, the local education system becomes better-funded, etc, etc. Twenty years ago, companies could still thrive and remain competitive in the absence of an internet connection; however, in today’s global economy, it is absolutely essential.

Access to capital is equally important when it comes to giving businesses, both rural and urban, what they need to grow. Having a high-speed internet connection will not be enough to create jobs and spur the rural economy if local business owners are unable to obtain loans or find investors to help flip the bill. After all, the internet, while an essential tool, is not free. On average, it costs approximately $75,000 to launch a new small business (Velazquez). Even in a healthy economy, few people have $75,000 laying around, and in a rough one, obtaining this much capital can be extremely difficult.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said yesterday; “I think people realize that rural America is where a lot of good people come from and serve their country…sixteen percent of population, 44% of the military; we want to make sure that there is a continuation of the next generation of young people growing up in that value system that's going to continue to support their country and serve their country." Much remains to be learned about the new White House Rural Council but at least rural America can be happy that their voice has finally been heard.

-Grace Boatright

National Grange Programs Assistant

Luttrell, Ed. June 9, 2011. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/9/plugging-in-rural-america/

Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez (D-NY). June 10, 2011. http://pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=759106&Itemid=29

Don't Take it for Granted

2011-05-27T09:47:00.000-07:00

Memorial Day is this coming Monday. It’s the day we stop to recognize the millions of military men and women across this nation who have sacrificed their very existence on earth so we can be free. Tragically, there are plenty of people out there that only relate Memorial Day with an extra day off from work and couldn’t really tell you what it is or what we’re celebrating. What I also find ironic is that the very people we’re honoring aren’t here to celebrate with us. They’ve given their lives so that we could be free to do what we want, when we want, where we want to do it, and with whomever we’d like to do it. We take that for granted. Most of us grew up under the blanket of freedom that those brave men and women have provided, never knowing anything different and never thinking about the alternative. If you’re out of milk, you simply get in your car and drive to a grocery store, you pay with the money you’ve earned at your job, and then walk back to your car and drive back to your home, probably located in a nice neighborhood surrounded by people just like you. But life isn’t so simple for everyone. There are people in parts of the world that don’t have a grocery store to walk to, and if they did, they’d have to present papers to the abusive government drones stationed outside their front door, praying to god that somebody doesn’t decide to give them a hard time; like Jews in WWII for example. If you think about it, that was less than 100 years ago, and there’s no reason it couldn’t happen again. As Americans, I firmly believe that we take that for granted, and don’t always give credit to the heroes who worked to establish and maintain that liberty.

I also believe that before 9/11, many people never even thought about our troops or their families and the tremendous sacrifice they make each and every day; and it is a sacrifice…a big one! I challenge you to sit and think for a moment what your life would be like if the person you loved most only got to come home for a month or so out of every year. The rest of the time they’re in some god-forsaken country, dodging bullets in triple digit weather, with 100 pounds of equipment strapped to their backs, all because two governments can’t get along. Sure they get paid, but trust me- nobody joins the military for the paycheck. They join because they realize that somebody has to volunteer. Somebody has to go. So they unselfishly enlist in our military, knowing full well what that entails. However, it’s not just the people that enlist who are making the sacrifice. The mother of 3 whose husband is across the world in Iraq has to do everything by herself. Get the kids up for school, get them dressed, drop them off, go work a full day herself, pick them up from school, settle their fights and disagreements, explain why daddy isn’t there, make dinner, put them to bed, get up the next morning and start all over again, all the while praying that her husband even gets the opportunity to walk through his front door again. Maybe he won’t. Maybe he will. I can’t imagine living with that kind of uncertainty. But she’s playing the most important role for our troops- she’s the light at the end of the tunnel. That brave man over in Iraq knows that he’s got something to stay alive for, he’s got somewhere to be when all the chaos is finally over and they get to go home. He’s got to have that hope, it’s essential to the spirit of each and every brave soul over there. And I’ll be very honest- it’s a sacrifice that I wasn’t willing to make. Most of us don’t make it. We let other people do it. But what if they didn’t do it; what if they refused to go? Our nation of free men and women could look like 1940’s Poland in no time at all. We shouldn’t take that for granted.

So this Memorial Day, while you’re sitting at your cousin’s barbecue, drinking Bud Light and watching a baseball game, think about why it is that you’re able to sit in that lawn chair doing nothing. I promise- there’s somebody on the other side of the world, wearing a United States uniform, who isn’t having such a great time. And most of all- they volunteered to be there.

Happy Holiday everyone.

-Grace Boatright
National Grange Programs Assistant

Show Time! The 2011 National Grange Legislative Fly-In is here!

2011-05-20T11:33:00.001-07:00

We’ve finally made it! This coming week, from Sunday the 22^nd to Tuesday the 24^th, the National Grange Legislative Department will be hosting our annual Legislative Fly-In here in Washington D.C.! We are very excited and have planned some exceptional events aimed at re-igniting Grangers’ commitments to an active citizen government. Setting the tone of leadership, we’ll begin by touring George and Martha Washington’s beautiful Mt. Vernon Estate in Virginia, after which we will be dropped off on Capitol Hill for each attendee to meet with their elected representatives. Later that evening, our members will be having dinner at a local hot spot with our guest speaker, Scott LaGanga, Deputy Vice President of Federal Alliance Development and Public Affairs at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), to learn about how the Affordable Care Act implementation is progressing. On Tuesday, activities start with breakfast and an issue briefing by John Blanchfield, Senior Vice President for the Center for Agricultural and Rural Banking. After more congressional visits, Tuesday’s lunch will be hosted by AT&T at their Innovation Center in Washington D.C., where our members will be briefed on Telehealth and how it is changing the face of rural healthcare.

The Legislative Department looks forward to our annual Fly-In for several reasons, but primarily because it grants our members the opportunity for face-to-face communication with their representatives in Congress. It takes many phone calls, emails, and faxes but the Grange Legislative Department does its best to arrange meetings for all our attendees, allowing them to sit and speak with their representatives and/or their staff to discuss pressing issues facing Grange Halls across America.

While scheduling appointments, we are honored to witness the name recognition that the Grange still enjoys. Having been founded in 1867, the Grange is one of the oldest lobbies in Washington and still maintains a presence in the world of agricultural and rural politics. Hosting an annual Legislative Fly-In only serves as a reminder that Grangers are still committed to celebrating their citizenship and engaging with their government on behalf of their communities. I’d like to extend a very special thanks to everyone who helped with the Fly-In, be it in donations or packing envelopes. Your efforts and support help carry on the Grange name and our worthy cause. See you soon everybody!

Grace Boatright

National Grange Programs Assistant

National Goes to the Newseum

2011-05-13T13:21:00.000-07:00

Wednesday the National Grange had the very special opportunity to attend President Obama’s Town Hall Meeting at Washington D.C.’s Newseum, hosted by CBS News. The meeting focused on the state of the economy and gave those who attended an opportunity to speak to their Commander and Chief about the job he’s doing (or isn’t doing) regarding our current economic crisis. The audience consisted of roughly 150 people, most of them D.C. locals, college students, business owners, organizations, and the rest of us who were brave enough to stand the security measures of a presidential event.

As previously noted, the meeting centered on the economy and provided the President with ample opportunity to state his case and defend the economic policies he’s fought so hard to implement and maintain; quite a feat given his 34% approval rating on the topic. Naturally, discussion opened with CBS’s Erica Hill reaffirming that the American people feel as though “for every two steps forward, it’s one step back,” to which the President agreed and stated the importance of focusing not only on the recovery, but on fixing the problems that existed before. He added that the recovery has been “uneven,” referencing that sects like manufacturing are doing quite well while others like the housing market are gasping for breath. “...it's gonna take us several years for us to get back to where we need to be…but the important thing, though...is we're moving in the right direction."

The President’s optimism that we’re “moving in the right direction” was immediately brought back to earth with a question regarding gas prices and just what exactly is he willing to do to see them drop. Obama made clear “we’re producing more oil now than any time since 2003.” The President continued the discussion by re-affirming his long-term plan to implement fuel-efficiency standards for cars, which he says would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil. I’m sure that doesn’t mean much to the 9% of Americans who are out of work and otherwise unable to trade in their old cars for newer fuel-efficient models. Nor should it mean much to the other millions of Americans who are seeing more and more of their income going into their gas tanks, with gas prices now hovering around $4 nationwide. Consequently, given Obama’s moratorium on off-shore drilling last summer, he seems intent to let that oil production happen somewhere besides the U.S. However, for some good news, the Republican-led House voted Thursday to lift Obama’s ban on off-shore drilling by passing the “Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act.”

Discussion continued in the direction of job creation and the housing market. Not really helping his case, Obama pointed out that a large portion of job losses in the country have come from government lay-offs, not from the private sector. The problem, according to the President, lies in the fact that companies, both domestically and abroad, are still unsure about whether America is a worthy investment. He stated that companies “must start placing their bets on America,” and that most companies have benefitted from government efforts to stabilize the economy. Obama was then schooled by a woman currently underwater in her mortgage that his attempts to reverse the housing crisis have not worked. “Well, it's not that it hasn't worked…the problem is, is that the need is so great. So it's like you have a huge pothole, and you only have so much gravel. And if you're talking about-- $5 trillion worth of home value, and a program that only has a few billion dollars, then there are a lot of people who are not going to be helped. And so what we're trying to do is to figure out how can we get the banks to do more,” replied the President. That also is little comfort to the one in four homeowners who are currently upside down in their mortgages, meaning they owe more than it’s worth. Even now, home prices are down 8% from just a year ago and falling 1% each month. Obviously, this woman is not completely wrong and Obama’s measures to improve the housing market have been about as effective as his responsive to the floods in the Tennessee Valley.

After the meeting was done and adjourned, it was more apparent to me and several other audience members that the President is far from having a completely realistic view on the economy, its effects on common Americans, or its path to improvement. Main Street knows all too well the hardships associated with high unemployment and low wages. However, I suppose with the Secret Service pumping all his gas, it’s easy for Obama to forget life on Main Street America.

-Grace Boatright
National Grange Programs Assistant

Farm Subsidies: Use’em While You Got’em

2011-05-06T13:08:00.000-07:00

For over a year, there has been no question that Medicare was the large beast about to be slayed in the budget battle. On the heels of the November elections, many thought that even a repeal of Obamacare was possible. Few were thinking at the time of the remarkable ability of an incumbent Senator who barely won his own election, Senate Leader Harry Reid, to stave off a Medicare deconstruction. Exit stage left and enter the House Republicans 6 months later.

This week, House Republican Leadership announced that cutting Medicare would no longer be their focus and that they were looking at other large programs such as farm subsidies for cost containment. There has long been a notion that farm subsidies would take a cut in the next Farm Bill, slated to be passed in 2012. However, it appears more and more likely that it may be a complete overhaul of the subsidy system. Fortunately, for agriculture an overhaul may not take place until 2013. So if you are a large production farmer who currently utilizes subsidies, I would advise you to use’em while you got’em. Shoot, even Prince Charles was chewing on Obama’s ear this week about the evils of farm subsidies.

Earlier this week, I was on Capitol Hill speaking with some Republican freshman who serve on the House Agriculture Committee and I asked them how their recent negotiations were going on the debt ceiling and the budget. It seems that one thing everyone is agreeing on is that the debt ceiling must be lifted. As far as what should be cut in the new budget, there was little agreement. However, there was a certain new buzz in the air about how many on the agriculture committee do not believe there is going to be a 2012 Farm Bill. There is a great deal of doubt that a bill this large with so many moving parts could possibly weather a presidential campaign and the political finger pointing that comes with it. By holding up a Farm Bill in the Senate, even if the House passes a bi-partisan measure, this could mean a great deal of newly elected Republican freshman going home with incompletes on their report cards. Senator Harry Reid may still have the trump card on the next election cycle after all.

-Nicole Palya Wood

Legislative Director

The CFTC and SEC Rule to Protect Agriculture

2011-04-29T13:13:00.001-07:00

Farming cooperatives and physical commodities traders across the country can now breathe a sigh of relief. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) voted yesterday to exclude commodities futures, as well as insurance policies and home-heating oil contracts, from swaps regulations required under the Dodd-Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank’s answer to the 2008 financial meltdown was signed by President Obama in July of 2010. However, several aspects of the bill, which sought to implement new regulatory reforms on Wall Street, were vague in their implementation and cost. One such aspect was the regulation to be imposed on commodity futures and whether farming cooperatives, such as Dairy Farmers of America, should be defined as swap dealers or end-users. Had these farming cooperatives been labeled as swap dealers, they would have become subject to numerous regulations and capital requirements. Having them formally excluded is a great victory for the agricultural industry. The forward contracts purchased by farmers and others in the agriculture community allow them to hedge against swings in market prices caused by natural disasters or other unforeseen events. Without these contracts, America’s growers and others who depend on the sale of commodities for their livelihoods would have been left incredibly vulnerable.

In addition to settling the issue of definitions, Wednesday’s proposal also settled the issue of which agency would regulate what. Dodd-Frank originally gave the CFTC and the SEC parallel control over the swaps market, creating some confusion over who should specifically be in charge of what sector of the nearly $585 trillion global swaps market. It has been decided that the CFTC will oversee swaps linked to interest rates and commodities, and the SEC will control swaps linked to loans and other securities.

However, despite this victory, the debate on Dodd-Frank is far from over. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas has introduced H.R. 1573, a bill to extend the deadline for implementing Dodd-Frank’s derivatives provisions by 18 months. Lucas claims; “The bill gives the regulatory agencies more time to effectively meet the objectives of the derivatives title, to prioritize deliberation over speed, to consider the costs and benefits, and to understand the cumulative impact of the rules.” A derivative refers to an instrument whose value depends on the future performance of a financial asset, such as a commodity. Commodity derivatives allow an investor to profit from the rise in value of a commodity without actually possessing it. Historically, farmers have used them to protect themselves against risk; promising to sell crops in the future at a pre-determined price.

Advocates of financial reform, such as the U.S. Treasury Department, continue to oppose any effort to slow down the implementation of Dodd-Frank’s regulations. CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton has warned “While regulatory agencies may not be able to make every deadline required under the reform bill…the urgency Congress has already placed on getting reforms implemented is just as important today as it was when this good and needed legislation became law.” H.R 1573 is scheduled for full committee consideration and markup by the House Agriculture Committee on May 4, 2011.

-Grace Boatright

National Grange Programs Assistant

Gold or Government?

2011-04-22T08:43:00.001-07:00

As most of you have probably heard, the S&P 500 is considering lowering the Government’s credit rating. Currently, government treasuries, aka- bonds, bills, and notes, hold a AAA credit rating; the highest evaluation a rating agency could assign. In practical terms, AAA means investing in that security carries little to no risk. The chances of a AAA company defaulting on their debt (aka-not paying back money owed) are very low. They’re considered stable, dependable, and safe. However, the S&P 500 believes the government’s debt level is now so extreme it will be unable to pay back its debts. In other words, the U.S. Government is no longer a safe investment.

This is a problem for many reasons. In every university across the country, from MIT to UCLA, business students are told that government treasuries are to be the benchmark against every potential investment. This means if you’re considering investing in company X, you should first compare its returns to the money you could be making by investing in government treasuries. If you can make more money by investing in U.S. treasuries (bonds, bills or notes), then you shouldn’t invest in company X. It’s that simple, or at least it has been since 1860 when the rating system was established. Without the government’s dependability for safe investments, what becomes the benchmark? However, even more than that, if the government’s rating gets slashed, investors in U.S. securities, like China, will begin cutting back on their investments. We’ll have to offer higher interest rates, usually associated with higher-risk investments, in order to compensate for that loss and to attract new investors. In addition, higher interest rates would be attached to everything from mortgages, to car loans, to getting a passport. In an already fragile economy, this could prove devastating.

There is a bright light somewhere; however. While securities like stocks and bonds have been jumping around in price the last few months, commodities have enjoyed a steady climb to the top. Gold has risen over 31% the last year, and food prices rose 3.9% in February alone. Gas prices have risen 67% since Obama was elected, and the list goes on. This can be somewhat expected, as when investors can’t find comfort in the stock market, they often turn to the reliability of commodities. In a word, commodities are reliable because they are necessities. People have to eat, gas must be put into cars and to transport goods, and gold is always worth something…especially when other things are rapidly losing value. In other words, for the last 2 years or so, you would have done better to take money out of government treasuries and put it into industries like agriculture and oil. How 'bout that?

Either way, right now the S&P 500 says there is a 33% chance they will reduce the government’s rating within the next two years, and despite responses from the White House, the S&P 500 is simply doing its job. Their number one obligation is to investors, to reporting an honest, unbiased assessment of their findings. Apparently their findings say the government can no longer provide a safe environment for investors. And frankly, even if the government doesn’t lose its rating, significant damage has already been done. Its accountability has been called into question. Doubt has been stirred in the minds of investors and they will think twice before investing in government securities, especially when there are other companies out there whose AAA ratings have not been questioned.

-Grace Boatright

National Grange Programs Assistant

The only two things you can count on …Death and Taxes.

2011-04-15T12:10:00.000-07:00

April 15^th for many people is a day of infamy, albeit annual infamy. Tax Day. This year, due to a rare holiday celebrated in the District of Columbia, the Internal Revenue Service deadline for filing your tax return is actually April 18^th. For those last-minute procrastinators, they can thank Abraham Lincoln who freed over 3000 slaves that emancipated to D.C. from slave states, when he signed the Compensated Emancipation Act in 1862. I find it a bit ironic that the celebration and observance of such an incredibly liberating act conducted by Abraham Lincoln in 1862 is now associated so closely with the grim and humbling task of paying one’s taxes.

Truthfully, this was the first year that I have filed a tax return. I graduated from college only a year ago, and thanks to the National Grange, I actually have an income on which to pay taxes. In light of the nearly 9% unemployment rate, I should feel blessed to pay taxes on my income…right? Somehow, that wasn’t the feeling I got when I clicked the “Submit” button on TurboTax last Saturday. Instead of employment bliss, I wondered why I should pay any amount of my income to a government who obviously can’t be trusted to spend it wisely.

Our nation was already over $14 trillion in debt and then it took months for Congress to agree on how to fund the government through just the rest of this year. In the process, the government nearly shut down, we somehow became involved in the Libyan revolution- helping a group of rebels who openly hate America, the price of gasoline rose over 5%, the price of food increased more in February alone than it has in 36 years, and of course during this whole crisis, the President found it an appropriate time to vacation in South America. With all of this going on, it doesn’t make me want to give the government more money, and it certainly doesn’t make me feel emancipated.

- Grace Boatright
National Grange Program Assistant

Hey Mr. DJ

2011-04-08T13:21:00.000-07:00

This morning on my drive to work, a radio DJ made a comment about our recent election cycles--both the Presidential held in 2008 and the Congressional and Statewide elections held in November. He claimed that his listening audience, regardless of who they had voted for, had all voted the wrong people into office. He was of course referring to the current situation we have in Washington, as the likelihood of a government shutdown looms due to the fact our House, Senate and White House can’t agree on a budget. I beg to differ though with this DJ on several counts. I think we voted exactly who we needed into office and there is still room in Washington for a few more financial conservatives.

It is understandable that the American public is scared of a partial government shutdown. Paychecks will be cut for our military and about 800,000 federal workers will be furloughed, not to mention the countless government contractors. But for the first time in a long time, I am actually incredibly proud of our newly elected Congress. We have a freshman class full of, in some cases, first-time legislators who ran on the very platform of cutting federal spending. They stand today asking Congress to balance a checkbook just like their constituents sitting back home in their districts are forced to do each week. These Congressmen were given a mandate by the folks in their districts to go to Washington and tighten their belts and they are sticking to those campaign promises.

Further illustrating this DJ’s cloak of political naiveté, he noted how the federal government debt would continue to grow regardless of the shutdown. Yes, that is true, but to that I would use the example of credit card debt. It is one thing to be charging items on your credit card on a daily basis, and quite another to be paying interest on a balance while you pay it down. We must start somewhere. Shutting down the government does save money, but more valuable than that is the awareness that will be forced on all Americans who are not normally engaged in their government. The civic complacency which runs rampant across America and hollows out the heart of this nation’s greatness is a disease and this government shutdown is but just one symptom.

In the next few hours, we will most likely see many of our government operations shutdown, but it may be what forces open the eyes of the unengaged.

In an hour or so, I will get into my car and settle in for my hour or two commute home and I will still be thinking about what tomorrow’s news may bring. I say to you Mr. DJ, stick to the music and maybe the weather, because politics are way out of your league.

- Nicole Palya Wood

Legislative Director

IPAB: A New Branch of Government?

2011-04-01T13:50:00.000-07:00

Since its passage over a year ago, President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka- ObamaCare, has drawn opposition from voters, physicians, insurance companies, patient care organizations, pharmaceutical companies and numerous other groups affected by the President’s signature achievement. As the contents of the nearly 2,000 page bill continue to unfold, new arguments arise in support of its alleged unconstitutionality. Such an issue involves the Independent Payment Advisory Board, IPAB, one of 27 new boards created by the Health Care bill.

In summary, the 15-member board, appointed by the President, is responsible for reducing Medicare spending once expenditures have exceeded a particular amount. These “triggers” signal when Medicare costs rise above the rate of inflation. Once they do so, IPAB has until January 15 to make recommendations to Congress, telling them where and how to reduce spending to return Medicare costs to appropriate levels. While this seems appropriate, and in line with the current effort to reduce spending, the methods by which IPAB will operate border on unconstitutional.

First, all recommendations made to Congress by IPAB automatically become law the following January unless Congress can draft, and the President signs, their own suggestions for cutting Medicare by an equal amount, or if the Senate rejects the recommendation with a 3/5 majority. Furthermore, the changes made to Medicare by IPAB cannot be overridden by the President or any court of law. Therefore, in theory, being immune to checks and balances and congressional intervention or oversight, IPAB would have somehow attained more sovereignty than any 1 of the 3 branches of government. In addition, a simple majority of the IPAB board members PRESENT is enough to make a recommendation to Congress. Meaning, not all 15 members of the board need to be in the room to approve what could potentially become law of the land. No other agency or group is granted such power and influence to create and implement legislation.

IPAB’s structure and influence should be an even greater concern to those located in rural areas. According to our own Leroy Watson, former Legislative Director and current Director of Trademark protection; “Rural areas have a disproportioned reliance on Medicare services. On average, rural communities have a greater proportion of citizens over the age of 65 than suburban or urban communities. In addition, rural areas have the highest proportion of individuals who are either self-employed or work for someone who is self-employed. These self-employed individuals do not have access to either union, corporate, or government-sponsored retiree benefit programs. They rely almost entirely on Medicare for their retirement medical services.” Should Medicare services be reduced by an IPAB recommendation, clinics, emergency rooms, hospitals, and physicians located in rural areas will find it much harder to continue providing services to rural-based individuals, 25% of whom tend to be older, more economically disadvantaged, and more likely to be uninsured. Furthermore, statistically, 10-15% of those employed in rural areas work directly for the health care industry, with hospitals in these areas often being the 2^nd or 3^rd largest employer (Roberts). In this regard, ObamaCare’s stated intention of providing affordable healthcare options to all will have grossly backfired.

Undoubtedly, with a $14 trillion debt level, Congress must get spending under control. While IPAB was established to do that, the power with which they are allowed to operate is simply outrageous and unprecedented, and if there is no reform to the current healthcare law, membership nominations for IPAB will begin as soon as this year. A program as large as Medicare, with the potential to affect the lives of millions, deserves to be left to a transparent, democratic process, allowing for the input and insight of everyone involved.

-Grace Boatright

National Grange Program Assistant

John L. Roberts, “Look at Rural Health as an Economic Engine,” Executive Director, Nebraska Rural Health Association, http://www.nebraskaruralhealth.org/

Debit or Credit?

2011-03-25T12:09:00.000-07:00

Congress has this nasty habit of passing bills without fully understanding their content. The latest issue to surface from this trend stems from an amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act, presented by Senator Durbin, and correspondingly termed the “Durbin Amendment” (I know, they dig deep up there on the Hill.) Primarily, the amendment would set a price on interchange fees. Interchange fees are the costs that banks are able to charge retailers every time somebody uses a debit or credit card to make a purchase. You were able to use an electronic payment for that purchase, the retailer profits from that purchase and accordingly compensates the bank for facilitating the convenience of using a debit card to make that purchase. Everyone wins, right? Well, should this amendment succeed in resetting the price of interchange fees, banks will respond by limiting the dollar amounts of purchases made with a debit card, charging for checking accounts, charging to obtain a debit card, or any combination of these. In addition, retailers will most likely respond by restricting debit card usage in their stores. In the end, and as always, the consumer will be the one who really loses.

Debit card usage in the United States has grown at astronomical rates in the last decade. As of September 2010, there were 510 million debit cards in circulation in the United States alone (Creditcards.com). Reasons for this enormous growth include the convenience of electronic payment, low cost to the consumer, and the appealing choice of using a debit card instead of a credit card, which charges interest, imposes various penalties, and has an overall greater influence on credit ratings. However, if the amendment passes, banks and credit unions will lose almost 90% of their revenue (Berlau). Inevitably, these institutions will end up raising fees wherever they can to make up for lost funds. The Fed itself admits that banks will lose out in this decision; “the interchange fee standard would not limit the ability of an issuer to earn revenue from other sources, such as by charging fees to its cardholders (Berlau)”. Nice to know the Federal Reserve has the consumer in mind.

Small local banks, many in rural areas, and small businesses everywhere, unable to pay for checking accounts and other banking fees, will certainly be at the greatest disadvantage. With an anticipated price cap of no more than 12 cents per transaction, banks may be forced to limit debit card transaction amounts to $100 or less. However, the bill could arrange for smaller retail businesses to pay less in interchange fees, which for some small businesses comprises hundreds of dollars a month. Nonetheless, the fees they pay to their bank for the use of a checking account might outweigh that benefit significantly. The exact terms to be imposed by the Fed have yet to be revealed.

On a higher note, several members of Congress, including Barney Frank himself, recently sent a letter to the Federal Reserve, urging them to delay these price controls, set to go into effect in July; We urge you to delay this proposed rule until Congress has time to properly evaluate the far-reaching direct and indirect implications it will have on our constituents.” It is also worth noting that many of the Senators who voted to get the Durbin Amendment passed are otherwise unlikely suspects to pass such a piece of legislation; including Chuck Grassley (R-IA), David Vitter (R-LA), and Richard Burr (R-N.C.). Meanwhile, 10 democrats, as well as Joe Lieberman, voted no. It’s possible that the aforementioned Republican Senators were simply unaware of the amendment’s consequences, as many legislators seem to be, but whenever legislation requires the Federal Reserve to establish prices “reasonable and proportional to cost,” it should be a red flag.

Hopefully, the Federal Reserve and Congress will recognize the injustice this amendment would do to consumers everywhere and delay this portion of the Dodd-Frank Act. In an economy struggling to recover from a financial crisis, the last thing Americans need are more fees and charges taking money out of their already-strained bank accounts.

-Grace Boatright

Program Assistant

http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/credit-card-industry-facts-personal-debt-statistics-1276.php#Market-share-debit

Berlau, John. “Durbin Legislation Will Slam Small Business.” 18 March, 2011.

http://www.newsmax.com/JohnBerlau/dodd-frank-durbin/2011/03/18/id/389890

Cutting the Congressional Commodity Crisis

2011-03-04T12:43:00.001-08:00

Primarily, the Act could affect agriculture by addressing “commodity swaps” and giving a precise definition of a “commodity.” Commodity swaps are typically used as a hedging device to protect one’s self against the rising or falling price of a commodity. For example, say a company buys a lot of oil. This company can buy a contract, or pay a premium, for the legal right to purchase oil at a fixed price for a certain amount of time. This could potentially save them millions in the long run, making the premium paid for those contracts seem like nothing. Dodd-Frank has repealed all exemptions granted to security-based swaps. Though the exact terms aren’t yet clear, Title VII states; “Except as provided otherwise, no Federal assistance may be provided to any swaps entity with respect to any swap, security-based swap, or other activity of the swaps entity" (Thomas).

This mandate could affect farming cooperatives if the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) decides to define them as swap dealers rather than farm cooperatives and thus subjecting them to the regulations and capital requirements imposed on swap dealers. This could have dramatic impacts on people such as dairy farmers by hindering their ability to manage the risk of falling milk prices and rising production costs, a risk that could usually be transferred to a swap dealer through a commodity swap. A solution to this problem would be to term cooperatives, such as Dairy Farmers of America, as end-users rather than swap dealers, and exempting agricultural cooperatives altogether. Clearly, definitions become incredibly important at this point, and are primarily left to the discretion of the CFTC. Before this Act, “commodities” wasn’t so much a noun as it was a reference to a group of investment securities; some popular ones being oil, coffee, corn, cotton, and pork bellies. Without a precise definition, it will be much harder to know who to exempt and who to impose regulations on. Consequently, without exemption, growers will have to assume the financial risk associated with commodity price fluctuations, leaving America’s farmers incredibly vulnerable.

Having a degree in finance, I was eager to right this blog, and found it fairly easy to do so. However, what I could never have comprehended a year ago is the far reaching impact imposed legislation could have on the different sectors of America. In this instance, a bill directed at keeping Wall Street honest could have come back to wreak havoc on America’s farmers and agricultural communities. Let’s hope that the current budget cuts end up eliminating funding for the Dodd-Frank Act, otherwise we could find ourselves paying more for a gallon of milk than a barrel of oil.

-Grace Boatright

National Grange Program Assistant

http://www.http/thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.4173

Cutting the Congressional Commodity Crisis

2011-03-04T11:13:00.000-08:00

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Act. The bill, proposed by Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd, and so named, came as a result of the 2008 financial meltdown and seeks to implement new regulatory reforms to the financial services industry, aka- Wall Street. Reform in this case has meant greater transparency in the markets, tougher standards on fraud manipulation, more authority over insider trading, and greater protection for whistle blowers. Overall, the question became: what is sufficient manipulation/regulation to ensure sound pricing without the cost outweighing the benefits? Sounds pretty straightforward right? Well…not so much. Though unlikely to receive funding due to increasing budget cuts, the Act would have had numerous effects on agriculture.

Primarily, the Act could affect agriculture by addressing “commodity swaps” and giving a precise definition of a “commodity.” Commodity swaps are typically used as a hedging device to protect one’s self against the rising or falling price of a commodity. For example, say a company buys a lot of oil. This company can buy a contract, or pay a premium, for the legal right to purchase oil at a fixed price for a certain amount of time. This could potentially save them millions in the long run, making the premium paid for those contracts seem like nothing. Dodd-Frank has repealed all exemptions granted to security-based swaps. Though the exact terms aren’t yet clear, Title VII states; “Except as provided otherwise, no Federal assistance may be provided to any swaps entity with respect to any swap, security-based swap, or other activity of the swaps entity" (Thomas).

This mandate could affect farming cooperatives if the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) decides to define them as swap dealers rather than farm cooperatives and thus subjecting them to the regulations and capital requirements imposed on swap dealers. This could have dramatic impacts on people such as dairy farmers by hindering their ability to manage the risk of falling milk prices and rising production costs, a risk that could usually be transferred to a swap dealer through a commodity swap. A solution to this problem would be to term cooperatives, such as Dairy Farmers of America, as end-users rather than swap dealers, and exempting agricultural cooperatives altogether. Clearly, definitions become incredibly important at this point, and are primarily left to the discretion of the CFTC. Before this Act, “commodities” wasn’t so much a noun as it was a reference to a group of investment securities; some popular ones being oil, coffee, corn, cotton, and pork bellies. Without a precise definition, it will be much harder to know who to exempt and who to impose regulations on. Consequently, without exemption, growers will have to assume the financial risk associated with commodity price fluctuations, leaving America’s farmers incredibly vulnerable.

Having a degree in finance, I was eager to right this blog, and found it fairly easy to do so. However, what I could never have comprehended a year ago is the far reaching impact imposed legislation could have on the different sectors of America. In this instance, a bill directed at keeping Wall Street honest could have come back to wreak havoc on America’s farmers and agricultural communities. Let's hope that the current budget cuts end up eliminating funding for the Dodd-Frank Act, otherwise we could find ourselves paying more for a gallon of milk than a barrel of oil.

-Grace Boatright
National Grange Program Assistant

http://www.http//thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.4173

Recipe for Disaster

2011-02-25T11:15:00.000-08:00

Yesterday afternoon, after getting some projects out the door for the National Grange State Master’s Meeting, I decided that I had let my snail-mail cubby in our supply room fill up to an embarrassing level and it was time to get the letter opener out. In the collection of invoices and political newsletters was a lovely hand-addressed #10 envelope from a Wib Justi, from the National Junior Horticultural Association in Ohio.

The envelop contained an article from the February 2011 Issue of Country Living which detailed a certain M.A. Fox’s search for the perfect pie and how pie had become this individual’s medium for connecting with the past, and all other things inherited. The talented author of the piece points out how very difficult it is to make a perfect pie. How the components must be in perfect measure, with precise process and collaboration.

Unfortunately, in my warped, politically-charged brain, it made me think of this little situation we have inherited in Washington right now as we sit on the eve of a possible government shut-down. Now, in some cases, nostalgia can be just as detrimental to one’s soul as it can be restorative. However, sometimes taking a walk down memory lane is just what is needed to avoid making political mistakes of the past.

The federal government has shut-down 15 times since 1977, but the government shut-down that is the freshest in most folk’s memories is the one that resulted from the stand-off between President Bill Clinton and then House Speaker Newt Gingrich. The shut-down, which was the longest in history, lasted 21 days and occurred over the Christmas holidays. The two Clinton-era government shut-downs resulted in a gross furlough of over 1 million federal employees and countless contractors.

During the 1995-96 shutdowns, the unemployment rate was about 5.5% and today it currently hovers just under 10%. I don’t think this is the fat that we need to be trimming. Is sending a bunch of people home from work really the message we want to send to our unemployed? When the U.S. government tells small businesses to reinvest in their companies and hire more staff to energize the economy, yet can’t play well enough with others to do so itself, it speaks with a forked tongue.

I am the first to jump on the bandwagon of tightening our fiscal belt but I am not sure that shutting down the federal government leads by example or achieves the financial relief that so many are lead to believe. I don’t believe that the following is the recipe for a balanced budget:

2 Chambers diametrically oppose
1 White House that doesn’t even want to address the current FY2011 budget
1 The largest employer in the United States shutting down
1 The highest sustained unemployment rate since the Great Depression

PS: In the article from Country Living cited earlier in this blog, the Grange is noted for having the best of all country auction food stands (and pies). Maybe Grangers hold the best of all recipes.

- Nicole Palya Wood
National Grange Legislative Director

Recipe for Disaster

2011-02-25T09:43:00.000-08:00

The envelop contained an article from the February 2011 Issue of Country Living which detailed a certain M.A. Fox’s search for the perfect pie and how pie had become this individual’s medium for connecting with the past, and all other things inherited. The talented author of the piece points out how very difficult it is to make a perfect pie. How the components must be in perfect measure, with precise process and collaboration.

Unfortunately, in my warped, politically-charged brain, it made me think of this little situation we have inherited in Washington right now as we sit on the eve of a possible government shut-down. Now, in some cases, nostalgia can be just as detrimental to one’s soul as it can be restorative. However, sometimes taking a walk down memory lane is just what is needed to avoid making political mistakes of the past.

The federal government has shut-down 15 times since 1977, but the government shut-down that is the freshest in most folk’s memories is the one that resulted from the stand-off between President Bill Clinton and then House Speaker Newt Gingrich. The shut-down, which was the longest in history, lasted 21 days and occurred over the Christmas holidays. The two Clinton-era government shut-downs resulted in a gross furlough of over 1 million federal employees and countless contractors.

During the 1995-96 shutdowns, the unemployment rate was about 5.5% and today it currently hovers just under 10%. I don’t think this is the fat that we need to be trimming. Is sending a bunch of people home from work really the message we want to send to our unemployed? When the U.S. government tells small businesses to reinvest in their companies and hire more staff to energize the economy, yet can’t play well enough with others to do so itself, it speaks with a forked tongue.

I am the first to jump on the bandwagon of tightening our fiscal belt but I am not sure that shutting down the federal government leads by example or achieves the financial relief that so many are lead to believe. I don’t believe that the following is the recipe for a balanced budget:

   2       Chambers diametrically oppose
   1   White House that doesn’t even want to address the current FY2011 budget
   1   The largest employer in the United States shutting down
   1     The highest sustained unemployment rate since the Great Depression

PS: In the article from Country Living cited earlier in this blog, the Grange is noted for having the best of all country auction food stands (and pies). Maybe Grangers hold the best of all recipes.

- Nicole Palya Wood

National Grange Legislative Director

Show Me the Money

2011-02-18T11:17:00.000-08:00

Congress is currently addressing the daunting task of drafting the 2012 federal budget, a major issue given their new drive to cut federal spending and reduce the deficit. The current budget is set to expire March 4, forcing Congress to draft some sort of spending bill just to keep the government operating. On Monday, President Obama issued his own proposals for the 2012, $3.7 trillion budget, and so far, his recommendations have been met with some harsh sentiment from Congress. Obama’s proposals include cutting $350 million from the Community Development Block Program, reducing the EPA’s funding by $1.3 billion, and reducing Pell grant funding for college students. Simultaneously, he intends to increase funding for projects like his high-speed railway system, set to cost an astounding $53 billion.

Republicans see Obama’s budget as a feeble attempt to reduce government spending as they propose over $60 billion in reductions for the remaining seven months of the fiscal year. "This is business as usual at a time when bold, creative solutions are needed. This is not an I-got-the-message budget,” says Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Republicans have their own ideas for reducing government spending, including blocking federal aid to Planned Parenthood, reducing EPA funding by nearly $3 billion, and banning Pentagon dollars from sponsoring NASCAR teams, an expense most Americans are appalled to learn existed in the first place. As for foreign spending, the Defense Department’s budget has already been reduced by $78 billion over the next 5 years, and the Pentagon is now threatening that an additional reduction in funding could affect weapons programs, limit training, maintenance, and even payroll for personnel. Obviously, with 47,000 troops still in Iraq, protecting defense spending should become a priority for Congressional leaders.

Programs like the Market Access Program (MAP) are also on the chopping block. Representative Scott Garret (R-NJ) is proposing to eliminate the program, created in 1985 and currently sustained at $200 million annually, which helps to create and maintain foreign markets for U.S. agricultural goods. Under Obama’s budget, funding for the Agriculture Department would be reduced by $3.2 billion, mostly affecting direct farm payments and subsidies to high-income farmers. Rural home loan programs and wetlands conservation programs would also be subject to a reduction in funding. The Obama administration claims this would save $2.5 billion over the next 10 years. On Monday, the Agricultural Department estimated that net farm income would exceed over $95 billion this year (Brasher). That’s a 20% increase from 2010. Let’s hope their right, because with so many farming programs becoming a target for funding cuts, an increase in income might be the only thing to keep American farmers afloat.

From the looks of things, nobody will escape the wrath of government spending cuts, from the Pentagon to American farmers. A current deficit of over $14 trillion, unemployment at 9.8%, and no end in sight, a reduction in spending is just what the country needs. Both sides seem to have mixed views on how to make that happen, but in Congress’ defense, I have a hard time balancing my checkbook, let alone billions of dollars spread over hundreds of programs with thousands of individuals pining for assistance. We better know the outcome before March 4, or we wont have a government to worry about.

-Grace Boatright
National Grange Program Assistant

Brasher, Philip. “Vilsack calls subsidy cuts for large farms affordable.” 15 February 2011. Web. 18 February 2011. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110215/BUSINESS01/102150363/Vilsack-calls-subsidy-cuts-for-large-farms-affordable?SPORTS09

Show Me the Money

2011-02-18T09:57:00.000-08:00

Republicans see Obama’s budget as a feeble attempt to reduce government spending as they propose over $60 billion in reductions for the remaining seven months of the fiscal year. "This is business as usual at a time when bold, creative solutions are needed. This is not an I-got-the-message budget,” says Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Republicans have their own ideas for reducing government spending, including blocking federal aid to Planned Parenthood, reducing EPA funding by nearly $3 billion, and banning Pentagon dollars from sponsoring NASCAR teams, an expense most Americans are appalled to learn existed in the first place. As for foreign spending, the Defense Department’s budget has already been reduced by $78 billion over the next 5 years, and the Pentagon is now threatening that an additional reduction in funding could affect weapons programs, limit training, maintenance, and even payroll for personnel. Obviously, with 47,000 troops still in Iraq, protecting defense spending should become a priority for Congressional leaders.

Programs like the Market Access Program (MAP) are also on the chopping block. Representative Scott Garret (R-NJ) is proposing to eliminate the program, created in 1985 and currently sustained at $200 million annually, which helps to create and maintain foreign markets for U.S. agricultural goods. Under Obama’s budget, funding for the Agriculture Department would be reduced by $3.2 billion, mostly affecting direct farm payments and subsidies to high-income farmers. Rural home loan programs and wetlands conservation programs would also be subject to a reduction in funding. The Obama administration claims this would save $2.5 billion over the next 10 years. On Monday, the Agricultural Department estimated that net farm income would exceed over $95 billion this year (Brasher). That’s a 20% increase from 2010. Let’s hope their right, because with so many farming programs becoming a target for funding cuts, an increase in income might be the only thing to keep American farmers afloat.

From the looks of things, nobody will escape the wrath of government spending cuts, from the Pentagon to American farmers. A current deficit of over $14 trillion, unemployment at 9.8%, and no end in sight, a reduction in spending is just what the country needs. Both sides seem to have mixed views on how to make that happen, but in Congress’ defense, I have a hard time balancing my checkbook, let alone billions of dollars spread over hundreds of programs with thousands of individuals pining for assistance. We better know the outcome before March 4, or we wont have a government to worry about.

- Grace Boatright

National Grange Program Assistant

Brasher, Philip. “Vilsack calls subsidy cuts for large farms affordable.” 15 February 2011. Web. 18 February 2011. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110215/BUSINESS01/102150363/Vilsack-calls-subsidy-cuts-for-large-farms-affordable?SPORTS09

Stealing from Landline and Giving to Broadband...The Robin Hood Story for Today's Rural America

2011-02-11T11:17:00.000-08:00

On Tuesday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to re-task the $8.7 billion Universal Service Fund (USF) monies to address mobile broadband in rural areas and those without high-speed internet access. The move would cut federal subsidies to landline service providers and invest those funds towards mobile and fixed broadband internet services. Echoing this announcement, President Obama was in Michigan on Thursday when he announced his National Wireless Initiative, which aims to expand wireless coverage to 98% of Americans.

Established in the 1990’s, the USF was created to insure that phone service was available to all Americans in all of its far-reaching realms. Today, billions still flow into the USF. Both traditional landline and mobile phone service providers pay into the USF by way of a small user fee assessed on their customers. These fees then pay for the telephone service to customers in rural, sparsely populated or areas with rough terrain where the service is more expensive to provide.

Why the switch? In 1990, the average household relied on a landline as their number one source for communication, but today, cell phones, Skype and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) have created new alternatives and magnified a broadband divide between urban and rural communities. The President thinks he has the answer to bridging the gap by retooling the use of the USF to satisfy the growing need for all Americans to have universal access to broadband.

How big of a boost is this for rural America? Huge. How likely is this to happen? Pretty darn good if the experts wrapped around the axel on speed and deployment don’t get in the way. The President has committed to, and now has a very large fund to pay for, the build-out of broadband. Plus, there are 94 shiny new freshman in Congress who ran on little else but creating jobs and cutting spending. I am not sure if it is our Sputnik moment, but it sure sounds like the awful fax-like, record-scratching sound of dial-up could become a relic of the past.

There is no greater technology available today that can do so much to change the lives of rural Americans. Having access to affordable broadband is the key to opening the doors of businesses, providing virtual marketplaces, tapping into the convenience of tele-health and in general staying competitive no matter where you live. The connectivity to healthcare, jobs, on-line educations, and markets can help repopulate rural areas, slow down the brain drain and give hope to Americans who are desperately trying to keep their hometowns alive. It may not restore what many of us remember as “Main Street U.S.A.” but it definitely gives us the tools to reinvent it. After all, the idea of “Main Street U.S.A.” doesn’t need to go away, it just needs to evolve.

-Nicole Palya Wood
Legislative Director

Farm Bill Blues

2011-01-31T11:19:00.000-08:00

As the Republican-led House settles into their Washington duties, topics such as the 2012 Farm Bill are coming into discussion. Since the November elections, several changes have occurred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry that are sure to have an impact on the provisions of the 2012 Farm Bill. For starters, as previously expected, Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) took over as Chair, and Pat Roberts (R-KS) took over as the Ranking Member. Stabenow has a strong background in agricultural, as her first bill as a member of the House was the Wheat and Barley Protection Act of 1997. Roberts also has a strong agricultural background, with a particular focus on wheat production. John Boozeman (R-AR) and John Hoeven (R-ND) also joined the committee. Hoeven’s assignment will allow North Dakota to join Iowa and Nebraska, two of the largest producers of corn and soybeans, in having two members on the committee. Several changes have been made to the House Agriculture Committee as well, including Frank Lucas (R-OK) becoming chairman. In the past, Lucas has been a strong supporter of safety net programs, as well as conservation programs aimed at helping farmers maintain their land.

Issues sure to influence the construction of the 2012 Farm Bill include budget allocations, farming subsidies, and the Brazilian cotton conflict. Obviously, with Congress on a mission to cut spending, agricultural subsidies, commodity programs, environmental programs, and crop insurance programs are in danger of reduction. Tara Smith, director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation stated; “38 programs in the 2008 Farm Bill have absolutely no budget. If we want to continue those programs…money will have to be taken from someone else to do it” (Smith). In fact, these 38 programs would require about $9 billion in funding; a large sum which will be hard to squeeze from other programs. In addition, Rich Pottorff, chief economist and Washington editor of Doane Agricultural Services reminded us that; “budget issues totaling about $4.5 billion were sidestepped in the 2008 Farm Bill by shifting the timing of payments for some programs, and Congress won’t be able to do that again” (Pottorff ). All of this comes at a time when farming subsidies are surfacing as a popular choice for budget cuts. Many argue they are a financial burden American taxpayers can do without, claiming they only benefit the large-scale farms that don’t need the assistance or are spent on lands no longer used for farming.

As for problems abroad, in 2009, the WTO approved a Brazilian ban on U.S. cotton after Brazil’s claim that U.S. cotton subsidies were illegal under WTO guidelines. U.S. negotiators agreed to pay the Brazilian government $147 million on an annual basis to what is now called the Brazilian Cotton Farmers Fund. In light of the agreement, the Brazilian government agreed to drop all trade sanctions against various U.S. industries. Bringing our cotton policies into compliance will surely be addressed in the new Farm Bill, as the United States surely cannot afford to waste $147 million a year.

Unfortunately, the new Farm Bill cannot be constructed by crossing out the numbers from the old 2008 bill and replacing them with new figures. New Committee members and a new political environment, both domestically and abroad, are certain to have a large impact on devising and passing the new 2012 Farm Bill. With the juggernaut being created by the Obama Administration’s call for system-wide program cuts and the newly elected House of Representatives demanding fiscal restraint, the next farm bill will have to either very creative or very skinny.

Pottorff, Rich. “Budget Problems Confront 2012 Farm Bill.” 22 September 2010. Web.
31 January 2011. http://www.agnetwork.com/Budget-Problems-Confront-2012-Farm-Bill/2010-09-22/Article.aspx?oid=1243898&fid=AN-LATEST_NEWS

Smith, Tara. “Budget Concerns will Overshadow 2012 Farm Bill.” 24 January 2011. Web.
28 January 2011. http://deltafarmpress.com/government/budget-concerns-will-overshadow-2012-farm-bill

Grace Boatright
National Grange Program Assitant

Subsidize or Starve?

2011-01-21T11:19:00.000-08:00

The new vow taken by Congress to cut billions from the federal budget has generated some very different responses around Washington. Many believe that reducing government spending when unemployment is at 9.4% and the economy still remains rocky would be counterproductive to the goal of nursing the country to fiscal health. During these debates, an often overlooked expense has suddenly resurfaced: farming subsidies. A recent New York Times article entitled “Here’s an Easy One,” suggested these subsidies are an obvious and “easy” source for cutting spending. The article; however, failed to address the many problems that could arise should this specific spending reduction take place.

Some of the various arguments against the continuance of farming subsidies include that they are ineffective, waste taxpayer money, and only benefit the large-scale farms that don’t necessarily need the assistance. However, there is a larger aspect to this debate and one that deserves our attention as American consumers of farming products. For starters, this added support for commodity pricing shields against drastic market swings due to unforeseen events. More than other investment securities, commodities such as corn and cotton are subject to the mood swings of both investors and Mother Nature, as are the farmers that grow them. A rapid drop in the price of a commodity could devastate the livelihoods of those that produce them, throwing many growers into bankruptcy, forcing them off their land, and thus leaving farmland vulnerable to further extinction. Consequently, should that circumstance arise, our food supply could become dependent on foreign supplier intervention and subject to much higher prices.

Matt Espenshade, Grange member and third generation Pennsylvania dairy farmer, made several valid points regarding the issue; “Most of the Farm Bill programs are nutrition programs, not farm programs; and while there are some programs that need a review, you can not underestimate the impact of USDA conservation programs on improving the environmental quality near farmland. Also, young farmer loan programs have benefited farm start-ups, especially in a time when ag lending is so tough. Is there room for improvement? Sure…but the agricultural economy is the foundation of the rest of the economy. Agriculture is a huge investor into local economies. For example, [in Pennsylvania] of each dollar returned to a dairy farm, 85 percent is spent in the local community. Each dairy cow has an annual economic impact of $13,737.” Should these local farmers lose their subsidies, lose their farms, and have to give up their land, a large contributor to local economies could die out, leaving America’s small towns in jeopardy.

Farming subsidies, while not a perfect system, greatly contribute to the livelihood and economic wellbeing of local communities and the nation at large. The price stabilization they provide ensure stable prices for commodities such as corn, rice, and other consumable goods frequently purchased by the general public. So unless the public would enjoy paying $4 for a gallon of milk one day and $12 the next, some form of farming subsidies should remain in place.

Grace Boatright
National Grange Program Assistant