tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15428008852520044612024-03-08T10:31:50.907-08:00Ag Policy from the Inside OutAs someone who has covered Capitol Hill for over 25 years, but still lives in Rural America, Wyant provides unique perspective on key farm and rural policy issues.Sarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00239397904866930004noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1542800885252004461.post-30641823343335165572011-02-25T05:47:00.000-08:002011-02-25T06:42:34.518-08:00Don't mess with these farm womenBy Sara Wyant<br /><br />There are a lot of things that arrive in my inbox everyday, but few made my blood boil like the Environmental Working Group’s release this week, criticizing the Common Ground effort. It seems like every time people in agriculture come up with a good idea for reaching out and building relationships with mainstream consumers, the anti-production agriculture groups come up with a dozen reasons why they are wrong. <br /><br />For those of you who haven’t heard, Common Ground is a new program, initially rolling out in five states — Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, South Dakota and Nebraska. Project leaders are training female farmers to be spokespersons and to get their message out via social media, partnerships with grocery stores and media outreach efforts. Funding is provided by the National Corn Growers Association and the United Soybean Board.<br /><br />The EWG release suggests that, because “big ag” no longer has effective spokespersons, they are recruiting women to make their case---even though few women are actually in leadership positions within the major commodity organizations. But if you read between the lines, this seems like an attempt to belittle the women who have signed up to work on the Common Ground project, suggesting that they are just dumb figureheads who are blindly delivering messages for their male-dominated interest groups.<br /> <br />Give me a break! <br /><br />Anyone who knows the women involved in American Agri-Women, Women Involved in Farm Economics, or the Iowa Women in Agriculture, as I do, knows that these are strong-willed, bright and incredibly capable women. They are not figureheads for anyone. They care about their farms, their families and the environment. They are perfectly capable of saying “yes” or “no” to public relations campaigns funded by others. For EWG to even slightly suggest otherwise, is to employ the most sexist inuendo I have seen in decades.<br /><br />Could there be more women in leadership for the nation’s largest commodity organizations? Yes. I agree with EWG on that point. But how do you forget to mention that there are several womens’ organizations at the state and national level that are strong and growing, absent of men in leadership? Many of them are involved in the Common Ground project. <br /><br />Why? Well, perhaps it didn’t fit into the tale they were trying to tell, that somehow the <br />women who rule the organic organizations, are somehow more “real” and credible. <br /><br />What about women who raise both organic and conventional farm products? Apparently, in the EWG world, they don’t exist either. Maybe the organization could find a few, stop trying to pit women against each other and look for their own version of “common ground.”<br /><br />(In the interest of full disclosure, I spoke to the AAW annual meeting last year and I am an honorary member of WIFE, but I am not affiliated with the Common Ground project.)<br /><br />Sara Wyant is the Editor of Agri-Pulse, the nation's leading farm and rural policy e-newsletter. For a four-week free trial, go to www.Agri-Pulse.comSarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00239397904866930004noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1542800885252004461.post-84830598448913879572010-10-20T05:18:00.000-07:002010-10-20T05:23:39.074-07:00How Walmart’s sustainability efforts could impact on-farm productionby Sara Wyant<br /><br />It’s been said that when Walmart Corporation takes a giant step, the rest of the food industry feels the earth move. The nation’s largest grocer, based in Bentonville, Arkansas, has more than 8,600 stores under 55 different banners in 15 countries, 2.1 million employees and 2010 sales of $408 billion.<br /><br />If that’s the case, the supply chain might have been shaking Oct. 14 when Walmart announced the company’s new global sustainable agriculture goals. Company officials say their plan will help small and medium-sized farmers expand their businesses, get more income for their products, and reduce the environmental impact of farming, while strengthening local economies and providing customers around the world with long-term access to affordable, high-quality, fresh food.<br /> <br />Critics say much of Walmart’s sustainability plan is more image than substance. It’s part of a broader public relations campaign to improve perception of the global behomoth by linking their “big box” stores with local farmers, they suggest. This strategy allows the firm to offer some organic and local products to get younger, health conscious consumers in the door, while offering the types of inexpensive food products that the majority of their customer base already depends on.<br /><br />However, other industry sources think that Walmart officials are on the march toward a more sustainable future, even if they don’t exactly know what that will look like when they find it. This latest announcement expands upon a broader 2005 initiative that aimed to improve energy efficiency, cut waste, use more renewable energy and encourage suppliers to adopt sustainable practices.<br /><br />Over time, this latest initiative could lead to the development of social and environmental benchmarks that all producers would have to meet before selling products to Walmart. And eventually, these supply chain decisions could lead to industry-wide changes in U.S. food production by requiring, for example, “soil health” to meet certain measurements.<br /><br />“Over time, may not need the U.S. government setting standards for how we plant, spray and harvest. We will just have to follow Walmart’s rules,” noted a farmer who has been in discussions with Walmart officials.<br /><br />Walmart officials say they are just one part of a broader food industry push toward sustainability.<br /><br />“Through sustainable agriculture, Walmart is uniquely positioned to make a positive difference in food production -- for farmers, communities and customers. Our efforts will help increase farmer incomes, lead to more efficient use of pesticides, fertilizer and water, and provide fresher produce for our customers,” explained Mike Duke, Walmart President and CEO, in a company release. Duke, who grew up on a Georgia farm, has first hand-knowledge of the complexities of food production and he’s spent time touring farms in different parts of the U.S. to better understand the technologies being employed. <br /> <br />Certainly, Walmart is not alone in the rush to “go green” in the U.S. and around the globe. Other major farm and food players, like Cargill, Monsanto, Syngenta, General Mills, Kelloggs, Pepsico, Mars, Dairy Management Inc., and Stonyfield Farms are also on the hunt for measurable sustatinability goals. <br /><br />They joined Walmart in funding the Sustainability Consortium, which plans to develop “transparent methodologies, tools and strategies to drive a new generation of products and supply networks that address environmental, social and economic imperatives, according to their web site. Ironically, the very farmers who might be most impacted by their benchmarks, are not part of the Consortium, where first tier membership costs $100,000 per year. <br /><br />The Consortium, which is jointly managed by the University of Arkansas and Arizona State University and includes research from universities around the globe, has been developing an index which can be used to evaluate and measure sustainable practices on the farm and throughout the supply chain.<br /> <br />Eventually, this might lead to products in your local Walmart that are “scored” according to their level of sustainability, says Matt Kistler, the Senior Vice President of Marketing for Walmart and the man who previously served as Senior Vice President for Sustainability. <br /><br />Already, Walmart surveyed 100,000 global suppliers to answer some basic questions around their business, explains Kistler. The questions focused on four areas: energy and climate; material efficiency; natural resources; and people and community<br /><br />For example, “Do they measure greenhouse gas emissions? Do they supply that information to the Carbon Discloser Project? What is your total water use from facilities that produce your product?” <br /><br />As more research data becomes available through the Consortium, Walmart may ask farmers what inputs they can reduce or what the optimized level of pesticides and herbicides and water to use on a given crop, says Kistler. Once there is a baseline established, Walmart buyers can ask suppliers how they perform against the baseline. <br /><br />Will that include looking at corn that’s fed to hogs and cattle? Exactly how far will they go in trying to establish a baseline? Kistler says that some of those answers are yet to be determined. <br /><br />“The deeper supply chains get and the more complex they are, it will take more time and we may get to a point of diminishing returns,” he adds. “You can imagine, in the scale we purchase in, that doing things better by just a small percentage can make tremendous differences. We want to make sure we do them the right way.”<br /><br />In the meantime, Walmart is focusing on acquiring more food from small and medium size farmers, sourcing more items locally, reducing food waste, providing training, and a number of other initiatives around the globe. <br /><br />In emerging markets, Walmart will help many farmers gain access to markets by selling $1 billion in food sourced from 1 million small and medium farmers and providing training to 1 million farmers and farm workers by 2015. The focus will be on crop selection and sustainable farming practices – with about half of those trained expected to be women.<br /><br />The company will require sustainably sourced palm oil for all Walmart private brand products globally by the end of 2015. And it will expand the already existing practice for Walmart Brazil of only sourcing beef that does not contribute to the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest to all Walmart companies worldwide by the end of 2015. <br /><br />In the U.S., Walmart’s Heritage Agriculture program will help the company double the sale of locally grown food, defined as fruits and vegetables sold in the same state. The program focuses on sourcing produce from states and regions with long histories of agricultural production and reaching a level of 9% of the produce in U.S. stores. Three of Walmart’s largest Heritage Agriculture programs are in the 1-95 corridor along the East coast, the Delta region in the South and the Mid-America region of the Midwest. <br /><br />For a link to a map showing these regions: http://walmartstores.com/Sustainability/10378.aspx<br /><br /><br />For more background on the regions:<br /><br /><strong>Mid-America Project</strong>In the Midwest, where more families are relying on their farms for subsistence, we are increasing our purchases of crops such as apples and potatoes. States in this area have long histories of agriculture production with outstanding soil and water resources. Other examples of crops in this area include onions, cherries, celery, peaches, melons, sweet corn, blueberries and peppers.<br /><br /><strong>I-95 Corridor Project</strong>In the I-95 corridor along the East Coast, there is a high concentration of women- and minority-owned growers that benefit as we expand purchases of vegetables, such as bell peppers, cucumbers and squash. By taking advantage of the growing season beginning in Florida and moving northward, we can source tomatoes, peaches, greens, melons, sweet corn, blueberries, apples and broccoli.<br /><br /><strong>Delta States Project</strong>The Delta region of the South has a long history of cash crops, such as tobacco and cotton, which are in decline. We are replacing these with produce, such as blueberries in Mississippi and Arkansas where the growing season is longer. Other items include tomatoes, peaches, cabbage, onions, melons, strawberries, peppers, cucumbers and potatoes.<br />Source: Walmart Corporation web site<br /><br />#30Sarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00239397904866930004noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1542800885252004461.post-31916245272371508792010-10-11T09:22:00.000-07:002010-10-11T09:23:33.127-07:00How the mid-term elections will impact the next farm billNew members likely to bring renewed focus on cutting federal budget<br /><br />By Sara Wyant<br /><br />With the dust barely dry on the 2008 Farm Bill, it almost seems too early to be thinking about writing another one. But the current Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Collin Peterson (D-MN), has made no bones about it: he wants to get started early next year and complete a bill prior to 2012. <br /><br />In fact, Peterson has been meeting with several farm organization leaders, telling them that he intends to write a “baseline” bill, or one that uses existing funds for programs, rather than trying to find “new” money. Other House Agriculture Committee Democrats have been urging interest groups to get all of their farm bill ideas in by December so they can hold hearings and start drafting new legislation early next year.<br /><br />There’s only one problem. We won’t know who is going to be in charge of the Committee until after Nov. 2. With many pollsters pointing to a tidal wave of frustrated voters willing to throw out dozens of incumbents, there could be over 100 new lawmakers this fall. <br /><br />Chairman Peterson’s own seat appears to be safe, but if Republicans pick up at least 39 seats in the House of Representatives, there could be a new Chairman in charge. And that’s likely to be Oklahoma Republican Frank Lucas. <br /><br />Lucas is not in quite as much of a hurry to write a new farm bill. In an exclusive interview last week, he told me that the fiscal environment will likely be better if we wait a year.<br /><br />“If we write a Farm Bill a year early, we’ll wind up with less resources to work with and a more difficult environment,” Lucas explained. “Everything of course is subject to what happens in the election in November. Everything is subject to what the majority in the spring will do budget-wise, but from my own perspective, I think we’re better to wait until 2012.”<br /><br />In the Senate, Agriculture Committee Chairman Blanche Lincoln is more inclined to accept the later time frame for working on a new farm bill. However, there is also a lot of uncertainty about who will be chairman of the Agriculture Committee next year. <br /><br />Most polls indicate that current Chairman Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) is trailing her challenger, Rep. John Boozman by large margins. If she loses and the Democrats retain control of the Senate, Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow may take the committee’s helm. If the GOP gains 10 seats in the Senate this fall and regains the majority, ranking member Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) could once again be in charge of the committee and he’s not eager to write a new farm bill next year either. <br /><br />In most mid-term elections, the party in control of the White House usually loses some seats. But the expectation increases dramatically when the President’s job approval rating hovers below 50%, as is the case with President Barack Obama. In 1993, President Bill Clinton’s approval rating was at 46%, according to Gallup polling data, and the Democrats lost 53 seats to the GOP. <br /><br />New members<br /><br />Regardless of who is in the majority, there could be as many as 100 new members of Congress next year and most will have no prior experience with working on farm bills. <br /><br />“We’ll need to put a great deal of effort in educating these folks early,” says Mary Kay Thatcher, director of public policy at the American Farm Bureau Federation, who noted that a high percentage of the incoming freshmen members will likely represent rural congressional districts.<br /><br />Rep. Lucas (R-OK), the likely Ag Committee Chairman in a GOP-controlled House, says he expects to spend a huge amount of time in January and February educating new members. <br /><br />“We’ve got to explain to them what rural America and production agriculture and processing are all about,” he said.<br /><br />Current Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN), told us that he fears the election of a lot of Tea Party-leaning Republicans would “be a problem for farm bills and farm policy.”<br /><br />Chandler Goule, vice president of government relations at the National Farmers Union, offered a more blunt assessment. <br /><br />“If the Tea Party gets a lot of their members into Congress, I think you kiss a good chunk of the farm bill goodbye,” Goule said, predicting that commodity and even conservation programs would face significant budget cutting pressure. <br /><br />Fiscal focus<br /><br />Whether or not the renewed focus on deficit reduction is driven by the Tea Party movement or other newly “reborn” fiscal conservatives, several members tell us there is likely to be a renewed push to cut all federal programs next year. If that’s the case, farm programs will certainly be under the microscope. <br /><br />Farm and commodity groups will be working to help the incoming lawmakers understand that gutting ag programs alone won’t make a dent in the budget deficit. <br /><br />While acknowledging that trillion-dollar deficits “do have have consequences,” Sam Willett, senior director of public policy at the National Corn Growers Association, hopes the ag community is able have an adult conversation with the freshman class about the value of a reliable risk management safety net for producers. <br /><br />“We have a challenge in terms of letting them know where our priorities are and, in some cases, they have may have received different messages during their campaigns,” Willett explained. <br /><br />At the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, VP of government affairs Colin Woodall thinks the likelihood of having so many new members of Congress increases the chances for progress on other key issues that are haunting many farmers and ranchers. He cites issues such as regulatory overkill by the Environmental Protection Agency and estate taxes. <br /><br />“I think we’re going to have a much easier time making the case to them on why the ‘death’ tax needs to be reformed,” he said, adding that depending on how many Tea Party-backed candidates are elected, “the talk of repeal could come up again.”<br /><br />#30Sarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00239397904866930004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1542800885252004461.post-5907194945178843042010-09-14T11:38:00.000-07:002010-09-14T11:41:14.722-07:00The search for a better safety net continuesBy Sara Wyant<br /><br />It’s that time of year again. Yes, farmers are gearing up their combines for the annual fall harvest. But as this long, hot summer starts to fade, members of each state farm and commodity organization are also preparing for their annual meetings and deciding what they’d like to see changed in their policy books. One of the items that comes up year after year is the status of the farm safety net. <br /><br />Ever since federal farm programs were first developed in the 1930’s, lawmakers have fiddled with trying to build something better and longer-lasting. We’ve had farm programs trying to manage supplies, cover the cost of production and support prices. In more recent years, the focus has been on managing both yield and revenue risks. Along the way, we’ve spent a few billions on ad hoc disaster payments and we’ve had to learn more acronyms than you can hardly count. (PIK, AMTA, CRP, CCP, ACRE, etc.) . So what will be next as policy makers prepare for the 2012 Farm Bill? <br /><br />There are a number of options under consideration, ranging from minor tweaks to elimination of entire programs. Delegates attending the recent Iowa Farm Bureau meeting voted to get rid the approximately $5 billion spent on direct payments annually if those funds could be invested in a revenue protection product. <br />“Voting delegates discussed a wide range of options and acknowledged regional differences, but agreed this Farm Bill must provide a dependable, fiscally responsible safety net for all farmers,” said IFB President Craig Lang in a press release. “Instead of direct payments, we agreed the money should be used to enhance a sound revenue insurance program, risk management and fair trade,” said Lang. Their policy also calls for the ACRE program to be based on county, rather than state, yields and revenue—and to include revenue protection for livestock as well.<br /><br />Iowa Farm Bureau’s new policy is generating some headlines, but you will likely hear lively debate this fall as farm groups consider changes in several of the major programs which are currently in place. Here’s a preview of those debates.<br />Direct payments. These fixed, annual payments were first established in 1996 (Freedom to Farm Bill) and were pitched as a way to gradually transition farmers away from the previous system of target prices and deficiency payments. Direct payments have long come under fire from non-farm interests because they are paid regardless of whether or not anything is produced on the land. Critics also point out that direct payments can inflate land prices and rental rates because at least a portion of the payments accrue to the landlord. <br /><br />Yet, many landowners say that direct payments give them stability, year-in and year-out, that they might not otherwise have for planning and financing. Their lenders love them perhaps more than they do. Another plus: because direct payments are not influenced by current production and prices, they are well-accepted by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and not considered to be “trade-distorting.” <br />ACRE: Introduced as part of the 2008 Farm Bill debate, the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) program was designed to protect farmers against revenue losses, regardless of whether the loss was a result of price and/or yield. The ACRE program pays when two conditions are met: the state-level revenue for a crop falls below a guaranteed level and when a farmer actually loses revenue on a farm. <br /><br />The handful of farmers who did participate in ACRE are likely to benefit handsomely. For example, wheat growers are likely to receive almost $90/acre in Illinois and $70/acre in Missouri, says Troy Dumler, Extension Agricultural Economist, Kansas State University. For corn, Texas non-irrigated growers are projected to receive about $70/acre and in Oklahoma, payments could exceed $140/acre. In time, supporters believe that more growers will “warm” to ACRE and the risk management benefits. <br /><br />Yet, critics complain that the program is too complex and cumbersome, which they say explains why only 8% of the total number of eligible farms elected to participate in ACRE for 2009. To participate, you had to sign up for all program years (2008-2012) rather than just one year. It’s a tough sell to landlords, who may not be accustomed or willing to make a long-term commitment. Participants also had to forgo 20% of their direct payments and and would be eligible for loan rates which are reduced by 30%. Some would like to see the program be annual, rather than multi-year. Others want to see the state-based trigger changed to a county-based trigger, although it would be an expensive proposition.<br /><br />SURE: The Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE) was included in the 2008 Farm Bill as a way to finally put an end to “ad hoc” disaster programs. It compensates growers who farm in or border a county designated as an agricultural disaster area for a portion of crop losses that are not eligible for payments under the crop insurance program or the Noninsured crop disaster assistance program (NAP). Payment calculations are based on a farmer’s revenue from all crops in all counties (including farm program and crop insurance payments) compared to a guaranteed level based on expected yields and prices. If the actual level is less than the guarantee, a payment is made, based on 60% of the difference between the two. <br /><br />Critics say the payments are too little, too late. Because the law requires the crop year to be finished so that the season-average farm price can be determined, payments may be delayed for months until after the disaster occurred. Southern farmers, say SURE doesn’t work for them, and have been pushing Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) for another $1.5 billion in ad hoc disaster assistance---the same type that SURE advocates pledged would no longer be necessary. The White House promised Lincoln that those funds would be forthcoming, although Secretary Vilsack recently said that he’s still not sure how his agency will find and administer the aid.<br /><br />Crop and livestock insurance. One of the most widely used and accepted form of price and yield risk management, crop insurance covered over 265 million acres last year, according to USDA’s Risk Management Agency. The Noninsured crop disaster assistance program (NAP) fills in some of the gaps in counties where crop insurance is not offered, but RMA is making a major push to expand coverage to historically underserved areas. In recent years, new policies have been developed to cover livestock and dairy producers from individual loss or gross margin. Other policies, such as Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) offer revenue protection for the whole farm. <br />Growers have the freedom to choose the type and level of coverage, and most growers report that insurance policies are relatively easy to understand and use. Delivered by the private sector as part of a private/public partnership, growers usually don’t have to wade through complex program calculations or the federal bureacracy to get paid. <br /><br />However, growers---especially in the South----complain that crop insurance needs to be substantially improved for cotton and rice. Non-farm ritics charge that policies are heavily subsidized by the federal government. In addition, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) pays private insurance companies to administer the program and underwrites a large share of the loss risk---although those payments were cut by $6 billion/year as part of an industry-wide renegotiation this year.<br />Making changes in any of these programs will likely have budget implications, and that’s where the rubber will really start meeting the road. Lawmakers have already signalled that the next farm bill is likely to be a baseline bill, which means there will not be any “new” money added for programs. So before anyone suggests any changes to the farm safety net, he or she will have to be prepared to say where the money is going to come from. “Show me the money” could become the commonly used phrase in the next farm bill debate.<br /><br />#30Sarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00239397904866930004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1542800885252004461.post-69850170780820239772010-08-25T05:01:00.000-07:002010-08-25T05:11:39.908-07:00Estate tax debate makes planning for death even more difficultBy Sara Wyant<br /><br />“My wife and I are trying to do estate planning, but we don’t know how Congress is going to change the law,” lamented an elderly Kansas farmer during a recent meeting. “Do you have any idea of what they are going to do?” <br /><br />Unfortunately, the estate tax picture, as well as the general tax picture in Congress, is about as clear as mud right now. As you may know, the federal estate tax expired December 31, 2009 after Congress was unable to reach an agreement on either a permanent or short-term extension. There is no federal tax on estates if you die this year, but then the death tax comes back with a vengeance. <br />The tax will be re-instated on January 1, 2011, with only a $1 million exemption and a 55% tax on amounts over that level--- unless Congress takes action to change the law. As a result, even smaller farms and businesses could end up paying a bucketful of taxes when the owner dies next year. <br /><br />Several lawmakers have introduced bills to raise the exemption and change the tax rates. But changing the law won’t be easy. The Statuatory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, enacted in February 2010, requires that any changes to the estate tax beyond a two-year extension of 2009 law must be fully offset by cuts in programs or revenue raisers. In 2009, there was a $3.5 million exemption on estate taxes with a 45% top tax rate. An estate tax bill was passed by the House last year that would basically reinstate the 2009 exemption and rates. <br /><br />In addition to the estate tax, there are a multitude of tax issues that need to be tackled before year’s end. The biodiesel tax incentive lapsed at the end of 2009 and has yet to be renewed. As a result, dozens of biodiesel plants are idling and investors are losing their confidence in renewable energy. Later this year, the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), widely known as the "Blenders' Credit" is set to expire. Last, but certainly not least, are the “Bush” tax cuts that you hear about so often about in political debates. If these tax cuts are not renewed, you could see tax increases in individual rates, capital gains, and dividends.<br /><br />Fiscal war?<br /><br />Tax issues could brew into a fiscal war of sorts for the country. President Obama wants to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and for couples making more than $250,000. Regarding the estate tax, Administration sources say the president’s position is to restore the estate tax and extend it at the 2009 rates. <br /><br />Several GOP lawmakers are fighting to reduce the estate tax and continue the previous tax cuts. They argue that, with the economy sagging and millions unemployed, it’s exactly the wrong time to force small business owners to pay more taxes. Doing so will place an additional damper on economic recovery.<br />Yet, others say that continuing the current tax cuts will be fiscally irresponsible and add to an already alarming federal deficit. The Congressional Budget Office recently forecast that the federal deficit will reach $1.34 trillion for this fiscal year. <br /><br />Even former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, an influential voice in favor of the first Bush tax cut in 2001, weighed in recently. On NBC's Meet the Press Aug. 1 he said that extending the cuts without making offsetting spending reductions could prove "disastrous." <br /><br />"I'm very much in favor of tax cuts, but not with borrowed money," said Greenspan.<br />Tax package ahead?<br /><br />When the Senate returns in mid-September, lawmakers are likely to consider a small business bill which could include a “fix” for the estate tax problem. The American Farm Bureau Federation is supporting an amendment to the small business bill that was introduced by Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and John Kyl (R-AZ.). Their measure would set the estate tax exemption at $5 millionwith a 35 percent maximum rate. <br /><br />Another bill, introduced by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), would defer estate taxes on farms and ranches if a number of conditions are met. Her “Family Farm Estate Tax Referral Act of 2010, includes provisions that the farm must be passed on to an individual or family member who has been materially engaged in its management and operation for at least five years, and the heirs must continue to use the land for farming purposes. <br /><br />A “recapture tax” would be owed if the farm or ranch was subsequently sold outside the family or was no longer used for farming or ranching. The tax due would be based on the value of the estate at the time the property is sold or ceases to be used for farming or ranching.<br /> <br />Yet another measure has been introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT.). His bill is cosponsored by Sens. Tom Harkin (D-IA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH). The bill would exempt the first $3.5 million of an estate from federal taxation ($7 million for couples), the same exemption that existed in 2009, and create a progressive rate so the so called “super wealthy” pay more. The tax rate for estates valued between $3.5 million and $10 million would be 45 percent, the rate on estates worth more than $10 million and below $50 million would be 50 percent; and the rate on estates worth more than $50 million would be 55 percent.<br /><br />The AFBF supports the Lincoln/Kyl amendment because it seeks a permanent forgiveness of estate taxes while the Feinstein bill is a deferral with taxes owed if property were ever sold outside the family or ceased to be used for agriculture. <br />The National Farmers Union sent a letter of support for the Lincoln/Kyl bill, but their policy actually calls for a $4 million individual exemption. Chandler Goule, NFU’s VP for Government Relations says the Lincoln/Kyl measure is preferable to current law and says a conference between the two chambers could come close to what NFU has been supporting.<br /><br />Failure to include estate tax reform in the Small Business bill increases the likelihood that estate tax reform will be included in a major tax package that is expected to be considered in a “lame duck” session after the mid-term election, says Patricia Wolff, Director, Public Policy for AFBF. <br /><br />Where the offsets would come from to pay for estate tax reform or other changes in the tax code is still anyone’s guess. <br /><br />Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) has circulated an idea that would allow individuals to prepay their estate tax, based on current value. Conceivably, the federal government would receive more money up-front, but could lose money if an individual’s assets appreciate considerably between the time they pay and the time they die. <br /><br />One relatively piece of good news for those of you trying to plan: There is little opposition to a stepped-up basis on asset values, says Wolff, so any of the proposed “fixes” will likely allow any appreciation of the affected property that occurred during a person’s lifetime to never be taxed. <br />#30Sarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00239397904866930004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1542800885252004461.post-40385780781192327712010-08-10T08:20:00.000-07:002010-08-10T08:31:11.588-07:00More red tape for your farm?Congress created new record-keeping requirements that could burden farms, small businesses <br /><br />By Sara Wyant<br /><br />A little-known provision tucked into the health care reform bill that President Obama signed into law this spring could have costly and confusing impacts on farmers and small business owners. <br /><br />The new regulations, which kick in at the start of 2012, require any taxpayer with business income to issue 1099 forms to all vendors from whom they purchased more than $600 of goods and services that year and report on forms filed in 2013. That means supplies, parts, or any of the goods that you might purchase to run your farming operation or business.<br /><br />“A laundromat that buys soap each week would now have to issue a 1099 to their supplier and the IRS at the end of the year. A landscaper who buys lawn fertilizer a couple of times a month will now be forced to issue 1099s to the companies they do business with, and no one is excluded,” lamented Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) in a recent speech on the Senate floor where he argued for full repeal of the new regulations.<br /><br />The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) provision would apply to businesses of all sizes, charities and other tax-exempt organizations, and government entities. These would include two million farming businesses, 26 million non-farm sole proprietorships, four million S corporations, two million C corporations, three million partnerships, one million charities and other tax-exempt organizations, and probably more than 100,000 federal, state, and local government entities, according to a report released by National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson.<br />The provision has nothing to do with health care, other than to help generate more tax revenue to pay for the mammoth reform package by reducing the “tax gap.” The federal government misses out on over $300 billion each year from tax underpayment, according to a report issued by the General Accountability Office in 2007. Requiring the additional 1099 paper trails are an attempt to help the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) find businesses that may not be paying their fair share of taxes. <br /><br />But along with additional tax revenues, the new regulations will likely create a paperwork nightmare for farmers and small business owners and yes, even the IRS. Although the rules have not yet been finalized, Olson highlighted a number of the challenges in her report: “National Taxpayer Advocate's FY 2011 Objectives Report to Congress”.<br /><br />“First, vendors will have to furnish, and businesses will have to collect, TINs (Tax Identification Numbers). If the vendor is a sole proprietor who uses his or her Social Security number (SSN) as the TIN, there could be identity theft concerns, especially if TINs essentially become public through routine printing on receipts. Alternatively, such a vendor could obtain an Employer Identification Number (EIN). If a vendor fails to furnish a correct TIN, the business is required by law to impose back-up withholding at the rate of 28 percent of the purchase price.”<br />“Second, businesses will now have to keep records of all purchases sorted by TIN. Under prior law, a business may have retained sufficient records to substantiate lump-sum ex-pense deductions. Under the new law, the business will have to segregate its records by vendor TIN to determine whether the $600 annual threshold is met for each vendor.<br /><br />“Third, businesses will have to produce and transmit information reports, including many not previously required. For this purpose, small businesses may have to acquire new software or pay for additional accounting services, incurring additional costs. Moreover, if a business makes qualifying purchases from at least 250 vendors during the calendar year, it will be required to file Forms 1099 electronically, which may require the business to pay a per-report fee charged by an e-file service provider.<br />“Fourth, the IRS will face challenges making productive use of this new volume of information reports. In general, the IRS’s document-matching system (known as the Automated Underreporter (AUR) program) compares amounts shown on a taxpayer’s tax return with amounts shown on third-party information reports like Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, and Forms 1099. <br /><br />For example, it matches wages shown on a Form W-2 with wages reported on a tax return and interest shown on a Form 1099-INT, Interest Income, with interest reported on a tax return.Under the expanded reporting regime, however, the amounts on the information reports and the tax returns will not match under the rules for at least two reasons. First, total annual payments under $600 will not be reported by the purchaser on Form 1099 but must be reported by the vendor. While the $600 threshold existed under prior law, if a significant proportion of a vendor’s proceeds comes from small purchases, PPACA reporting would be underinclusive. Second, the goods market is subject to a high rate of returned items that result in refunds to the purchaser. If a business purchases and then returns goods, the vendor does not have any income. Yet depending on how the purchaser’s record-keeping system is set up, a Form 1099 may be filed showing the purchase (particularly if the purchase occurs in one tax year and the return occurs in the following tax year).”<br /><br />At any rate,”it will be challenging for the IRS to sort these payments out,” reports Olson in her report to Congress. “In our view, it is highly likely that the IRS will improperly assess penalties that it must abate later, after great expenditure of taxpayer and IRS time and effort.”<br /><br />Under a proposed regulation to streamline data collection, many business purchases made with credit or debit cards would be exempt from the new reporting requirement because they are already reported by banks and other payment processors. But even this proposed rule has come under attack from small business groups that want to pay with cash or check to avoid costly credit card fees. The IRS is accepting public comments on the new rule until Sept. 29, 2010. <br /><br />Will Congress repeal?<br /><br />Even before the new rules take effect, several lawmakers are trying to repeal this proposal altogether and a key Senate vote is scheduled for mid-Sept. Both Republicans and Democrats want to change the rule, but they differ in their approaches and methods of paying for them.<br /><br />For example, Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) introduced S.3578, the Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act, which would totally repeal this provision and prevent what he describes as “a massive new paperwork requirement from being imposed on businesses.” This is a companion legislation to H.R. 5141 introduced in May be Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA).<br /><br />"This mandate forces businesses to waste staff time and resources on paperwork that even the IRS says will likely be of little value," Johanns said. "One more mandate that stifles small businesses at the same time that Washington urges them to hire workers. For businesses already struggling to emerge from a recession this would be particularly burdensome, requiring government paperwork for common, everyday purchases. It is nothing more than a government-imposed obstacle to economic growth and job creation.”<br /><br />Co-sponsors include: Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), Sen. John Thune (R-SD), Sen. Christopher Bond (R-MO), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Sen James Inhofe (R-OK), Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID),Sen. James Risch (R-ID), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Sen. Johny Isakson (R-GA), Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ),Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AR), Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH), and Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA). The lone Democrat to sign on this far is the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee: Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR).<br /><br />To pay for the change, Johanns lowers the affordability exemption for the new individual mandate from 8 percent to 5 percent, making fewer people subject to the individual health insurance mandate. The amendment also proposes that a $15 billion fund for wellness programs not be funded until 2018. <br /><br />Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) plans to offer another amendment that would not repeal the record-keeping measure but would change the reporting threshold to from $600 to $5,000. His alternative is paid for by changing Section 199 of the tax code, which allows the nation’s largest oil companies to deduct six percent of their income from oil and gas production from their tax liability, effective Dec. 31, 2010. <br />Some of the nation’s largest small business groups and the American Farm Bureau Federation are lobbying for full repeal.<br /><br />“The only option to address this widely-agreed upon onerous 1099 provision on small businesses is full repeal,” emphasized Susan Eckerly, senior vice president at the National Federation of Independent Business in a statement. “Congress needs to stop speaking out of both sides of their mouth. If they are truly interested in helping small businesses – whatever their size – they will pass legislation that fully repeals this burdensome new requirement.”<br /><br />#30Sarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00239397904866930004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1542800885252004461.post-30200284074014253112010-06-16T06:54:00.000-07:002010-06-16T11:33:25.937-07:00Dairy producers lead the drive for major changes in the 2012 Farm BillWill other livestock groups join in?<br /><br />By Sara Wyant<br /><br />“Tough times never last, but tough people do.” <br /><br />That quote, from Minister Robert Schuller, describes plenty of farmers, but is especially applicable to the dairy men and women who have been at the mercy of extremely volatile milk and feed grain markets for the last three years. Decades-old federal dairy policies did little to stop the economic “bleeding.” <br />Out of those difficult times grew some creative thinking about the type of safety net that dairy producers need going forward. After working more than a year with fellow dairymen, staff and economists, the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) rolled out their “wish list” for future federal dairy policy last week, dubbed “Foundation for the Future.”<br /><br />“Producers, like me, agree that the more than 70-year-old safety net programs need revamping,” emphasized Nebraska dairy farmer and NMPF board member Doug Nuttelman during a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing last fall while the group was developing their plan. “It needs to be made more relevant for the future to avoid the conditions we are now experiencing.” <br /><br />In 2007, milk prices spiked over $19/cwt. and guess what? Dairymen expanded production, only to watch milk prices respond to the oversupply and drop closer to $11/cwt last year. In what seemed like a perfect storm, the price of feed grains skyrocketed during the same time period, squeezing margins and driving many out of business.<br /><br />“It’s clear we need a new safety net that focuses on margins, not just milk prices,” said NMPF’s CEO Jerry Kozak. “It’s also clear we need a system that sends timely, unmistakable signals to farmers that less milk is needed during periods of relative imbalance. The Foundation for the Future addresses both of those key issues, and it does so in a fiscally responsible, politically‐realistic fashion.”<br /><br />It’s complicated<br /><br />For those of you who think U.S. dairy policy is already complicated, this new proposal won’t change your perspective. In fact, it may make it worse.<br />The Federation’s proposal to revamp the federal safety net involves several components, including the creation of an insurance program tied to the margin between the national average cost of feed, and the national average milk price. In a huge philosophical shift, the program protects margins rather than milk prices. <br />Conceptually, it is similar to a program currently offered in most states by USDA’s Risk Management Agency, Livestock Gross Margin (LGM), for dairy, swine and cattle. The LGM Dairy program provides protection to dairy producers when feed costs rise or milk prices drop. But this program has failed to attract much interest, with only 474 producers enrolling in 2010, and was rejected by NMPF as a workable solution.<br /><br />NMPF’s plan would use different benchmarks and be administered by your local Farm Service Agency (FSA) offices, rather than private insurance agents.<br />After farmers choose to enroll in the base level of the Dairy Producer Margin Protection Program at no cost to them, they would receive indemnity payments during periods when their margins are tight. In addition, farmers would have the option of purchasing supplemental coverage to protect a higher margin level between feed costs and milk prices, up to 90 percent.<br /><br />No annual payments<br /><br />In a conference call with reporters last week, Kozak said payments will kick in only when farmers face serious financial peril. "It's not intended to give a payment out every year, and it's not intended to give a payment when it's not needed," he explained.<br /><br />The dairymen don't want payment limits, which is understandable, but perhaps not realistic. Crop farmers have been unable to avoid them for years.<br />The insurance program would pay farmers when the difference between milk prices and feed costs falls below $6 per 100 pounds of milk. Dairy farmers would establish a "base" level of milk production which includes annual production over the past three years. Milk production beyond that level would not qualify for insurance payments. <br /><br />Another key element of the Foundation for the Future will be a Dairy Market Stabilization Program that sends a signal to producers that a small percentage of additional milk production may impact their margins. This program would encourage producers to lower their milk marketings at appropriate times. <br /><br />This proposal also includes other measures, such as expanding dairy exports, ending the current federal dairy price support program and the Milk Income Loss Contract program, which pays smaller and mid-size farmers when milk prices fall below a federal target of $16.94 per cwt. Major revisions to the federal milk marketing orders are also part of this comprehensive policy overhaul. <br /><br />Other parts of the dairy industry are advocating a much stronger supply management program in the next farm bill, but NMPF sources suggested that, if this new proposal is allowed to work, supply management terms might be unnecessary.<br /> <br />That may be true from an economic standpoint, but politically, it will be tough to embrace this large package of changes without building political support from large and small dairy producers, ranging from Vermont to California. And there will be plenty of questions from the cowboys and the pork producers, wondering why one part of the four-legged lobby gets margin protection, while they don’t.<br /> <br />Clearly the dairymen who developed the policy have learned from their tough times and are willing to embrace a much bigger vision for the future. Whether or not politicians will also embrace this “tough love,” remains to be seen.<br /><br />For more information, go to: <a href="http://www.agri-pulse.com/">Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy</a><br /><br /><br />#30Sarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00239397904866930004noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1542800885252004461.post-64985314164149494172010-03-10T13:39:00.000-08:002010-06-16T11:33:11.399-07:00Vilsack and Holder headline competition workshopsWashington, March 10 – Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and U.S. Attorney General<br />Eric Holder will participate in the first joint USDA/Justice Department workshop on<br />agriculture competition issues Friday in Ankeny, Iowa. Attorney General Holder and<br />Secretary Vilsack will deliver opening remarks for the workshop at 9:30 A.M. CST and<br />participate in a roundtable discussion at 9:45 A.M. CST. Following the roundtable<br />discussion, Vilsack and Holder will hold a press conference at 11:00 A.M. CST.<br />This initial all-day workshop to gather public input is part of a planned series of<br />workshops across the country designed “to explore competition and regulatory issues in the agriculture industry.” The workshop will be held at the FFA Enrichment Center at Des Moines Area Community College (DMACC) in Ankeny.<br /><br />The workshops, announced by Holder and Vilsack last August, are the first joint<br />USDA/Justice Department workshops ever to be held to discuss competition and<br />regulatory issues in the agriculture industry. The goals of the workshops are “to promote dialogue among interested parties and foster learning with respect to the appropriate legal and economic analyses of these issues, as well as to listen to and learn from parties with experience in the agriculture sector.” Attendance at the workshops is free and open to the public. The general public and media interested in attending the initial workshop should register at <a href="http:///">https://go.dmacc.edu/ffa/agworkshop</a><br /><br /><br />Holder, Vilsack and Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Antitrust<br />Division Christine Varney will participate in the workshop and will be joined by Iowa Lt. Gov. Patty Judge, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller and Iowa Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey. They will participate in a roundtable discussion with presentations on current issues affecting farmers. Testimony and roundtable discussion by a panel of farmers will follow. The workshop will also feature two panels focusing on the competitive dynamics in the seed industry and trends in contracting, transparency and buyer power. The first day of the workshops will end with an “enforcer roundtable” and public testimony.<br /><br />The workshop schedule:<br /><br />Opening Remarks (9:30 a.m. CST - 9:45 a.m. CST)<br />Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture<br />Eric Holder, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice<br />Roundtable Discussion and Presentation of Issues (9:45 a.m. CST - 10:45 a.m. CST)<br />Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture<br />Eric Holder, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice<br />Christine Varney, Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, U.S. Department of Justice<br />Patty Judge, Lt. Governor, State of Iowa<br />Tom Miller, Attorney General, State of Iowa<br />Bill Northey, Secretary of Agriculture, State of Iowa<br />Tom Harkin, Senator, U.S. Senate (tentative)<br />Chuck Grassley, Senator, U.S. Senate (tentative)<br />Leonard Boswell, Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives (tentative)<br /><br />Invited:<br />Bruce Braley, Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives<br />Steve King, Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives<br />Tom Latham, Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives<br />Dave Loebsack, Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives<br /><br />Farmer Testimony and Roundtable Discussion (11:15 a.m. CST - 12:15 p.m. CST)<br />Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture<br />Christine Varney, Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, U.S. Department of Justice<br />Ken Fawcett, independent crop farmer, Eastern Iowa<br />Jim Foster, hog producer, Montgomery City, Missouri<br />Pam Johnson, farmer, Floyd, Iowa<br />Eric Nelson, grain and cattle farmer, Moville, Iowa<br />Todd Wiley, hog producer, Walker, Iowa<br />Eddie Wise, hog and produce farmer, Whitakers, North Carolina<br /><br />Seed Competitive Dynamics Panel (1:15 p.m. CST - 2:15 p.m. CST)<br />Moderator:<br />James MacDonald, Chief, Agricultural Structure and Productivity Branch, Economic<br />Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture<br />Panelists:<br />Ray Gaesser, Soybean and Corn Farmer, Corning, Iowa; Vice President, American<br />Soybean Association; Former President, Iowa Soybean Association<br />Neil E. Harl, Charles F. Curtiss Distinguished Professor in Agriculture and Emeritus<br />Professor of Economics, Iowa State University; Member of the Iowa Bar<br />Dermot Hayes, Professor of Economics and Finance, Pioneer Chair in Agribusiness, Iowa<br />State University<br />Diana Moss, Vice President & Senior Fellow, American Antitrust Institute<br />Jim Tobin, Vice President, Industry Affairs, Monsanto Company<br /><br />Agricultural Trends Panel (2:15 p.m. CST - 3:15 p.m. CST)<br />Moderator:<br />Phil Weiser, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice<br />Panelists:<br /><br />Brian Buhr, Professor and Head of Department, Applied Economics, University of<br />Minnesota<br />Rachael Goodhue, Associate Professor, Department of Agriculture and Resource<br />Economics, University of California, Davis<br />Mary Hendrickson, Extension Associate Professor of Rural Sociology, University of<br />Missouri<br />John Lawrence, Professor of Economics, Iowa State University<br />Chuck Wirtz, pork producer, Whittemore, Iowa<br />Patrick Woodall, Research Director, Food & Water Watch<br /><br />Enforcer Roundtable Discussion Panel (3:30 p.m. CST - 4:30 p.m. CST)<br />Moderator:<br />Mark Tobey, Special Counsel for State Relations and Agriculture, U.S. Department of<br />Justice<br />Panelists:<br />Steve Bullock, Attorney General, State of Montana<br />Richard Cordray, Attorney General, State of Ohio<br />Chris Koster, Attorney General, State of Missouri<br />John Ferrell, Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, U.S.<br />Department of Agriculture<br />Stephen Obie, Director, Division of Enforcement, Commodity Futures Trading<br />Commission<br />William Stallings, Assistant Section Chief, Transportation, Energy and Agriculture<br />Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice<br /><br />Public Testimony (4:30 p.m. CST - 5:30 p.m. CST)<br />This is an opportunity for those in the audience to make comments in an open forum.<br />Closing Remarks (5:30 p.m. CST)<br />Phil Weiser, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice<br />John Ferrell, Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, U.S.<br />Department of Agriculture<br />Additional updates and information will be posted on the Antitrust Division’s agriculture workshop Web site at http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/workshops/ag2010/index.htm.<br />While no streaming webcast will be available, transcripts will be available for review at a later date on the Antitrust Division’s Web site. Individuals seeking more information on the workshops should contact agriculturalworkshops@usdoj.gov.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.agri-pulse.com/">Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy</a><br /><br />#30Sarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00239397904866930004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1542800885252004461.post-31460938562813434012010-02-12T09:12:00.000-08:002010-06-16T11:32:55.790-07:00What else are we missing about Deputy Merrigan?Before Michael Pollan, and King Corn, the current Deputy Secretary was full of criticism for agriculture as we know it<br /><br />When the Senate Agriculture Committee held a hearing to consider the nomination of Kathleen Merrigan to be Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, we heard most of the niceties you would expect for someone who used to be a staff member there. Her former boss, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), offered glowing words of praise, as did most other committee members. Only Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) seemed to probe a little deeper into her past support for organic agriculture, asking whether or not she could be able to represent all of agriculture if confirmed to be the number two political leader at USDA.<br /><br />Sitting on the sidelines at that same hearing were folks keeping their fingers crossed, hoping and praying that no one would ask about a little known chapter that Merrigan had written as part of a book, “Visions for Agriculture,” published in 1997. In that highly inflammatory chapter, Merrigan took a stab at almost every traditional interest group in agriculture, as well as the Senate Agriculture Committee, whose members she now needed to vote for her confirmation.<br /><br />In short, she would have had some explaining to do. <br /><br />But no one seemed to have read that little known piece of work, and no one asked....at least until now. We published several excerpts from the piece on www.Agri-Pulse.com <br /><br />Read “This is not your father’s (or your mother’s) USDA, <br />http://www.agri-pulse.com/DownloadLogin.asp?Name=201002102SW1.pdf (subscriber only) It’s a straight up piece, that you can read and form your own opinion.<br /><br />“The future of U.S. agriculture depends on reinventing government according to three principles: regulation, diversity, and democratic decision making. These principles will help farmers by ensuring market access and environmental stewardship…….To attain my vision of U.S. agriculture, we must undergo a disruptive period of heavy-handed government reforms, followed by a true partnership between the public and private sectors,” Merrigan wrote while she was a senior analyst for the Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, a Washington, DC-based organization which promotes research and education in sustainable agriculture.<br /> <br />She went on to bash almost every traditional commodity and interest group that has influenced agricultural policy for the last several decades and called for major changes in cropping patterns. Hardly any ox remained ungored.<br /><br />In this week’s Open Mic interview, we asked Merrigan about her focus at USDA and tried to provide a better understanding of her role. To listen, go to www.Agri-Pulse.com or to download on your PDA, click here:<br />http://www.agri-pulse.com/uploaded/OpenMic020810.mp3<br /><br />But now, lots of folks are reading that chapter and wondering: What else should we know about the Deputy? And what else don’t we know about the new agenda at USDA?<br /><br />We have asked our readers to read and react. Let us know your thoughts on how USDA is doing.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.agri-pulse.com/">Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy</a><br /><br />#30Sarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00239397904866930004noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1542800885252004461.post-75962863738329935602010-01-29T05:43:00.000-08:002010-06-16T11:32:41.032-07:00President Obama signals new emphasis on tradeBy Sara Wyant<br /><br />Prior to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech this week, we asked a cross section of farm and rural residents what they would like to hear him say. One theme that came across loud and clear: the need for this administration to get busy creating jobs through an aggressive trade strategy. <br /><br />“Get busy on trade!” was the advice of Kansas Farm Bureau President Steve Baccus. “That means get back to negotiating trade agreements that are USA friendly and work with the administration and Congress to quickly approve the ones waiting out there. Improving global trade will have an immediate impact on our economy.”<br /><br />President Obama delivered Wednesday night, as part of his State of the Union speech: <br /><br />“We need to export more of our goods. Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security, he said. <br /> <br />“We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. And that's why we'll continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea and Panama and Colombia.”<br /><br />For more on the President’s speech: http://www.agri-pulse.com/uploaded/Jan2710H2.pdf<br /><br />Farm groups quickly applauded the President’s focus on trade.<br /><br />“As leaders of an industry dependent on exports for half its sales, we were thrilled to hear that President Obama plans to give trade a more prominent role in his administration’s economic recovery agenda,” said U.S. Wheat Associates Chair Janice Mattson, a wheat grower from Chester, MT., and National Association of Wheat Growers President Karl Scronce, a wheat grower from Klamath Falls,OR in a joint statement.<br /><br />The American Farm Bureau Federation also welcomed the news:<br /><br />“Expanded trade opportunities are vital to America’s farmers and ranchers, and we welcome and support the president’s call to export more of our agricultural goods. We appreciated his support for strengthening trade relations with Asia and with key partners like South Korea, Panama and Colombia. We join President Obama in his stated goal of doubling our exports over the next five years and we look forward to working with the administration on a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports,” said AFBF President Bob Stallman in a statement. <br /><br />As much as farmers and ranchers are excited about the potential for a new push on trade, the devil is in the details. And for now, there do not appear to be any. <br /><br />Farm-state senators, like Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, wants action sooner rather than later.<br /><br />“In his speech, the President said exports are important to job creation, and education is necessary for U.S. workers to compete worldwide,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley. “I agree with those words. Now I’m looking for action. There are two immediate ways to advance these goals. One is for the President to send Congress implementing legislation for the three pending trade agreements that have been ready to go for years. The other is to fund a training program that will help workers get the skills they need for good jobs in the United States.” <br /><br />So how quickly will the Obama team act? When the New York Times asked the White House for specifics, their editors were told that the Commerce Secretary Gary Locke would provide more details in a speech next week. <br /><br />For now, all we can say is…..stay tuned.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.agri-pulse.com/">Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy</a><br /><br />#30Sarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00239397904866930004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1542800885252004461.post-68375956716575955672010-01-11T17:59:00.000-08:002010-06-16T11:32:10.596-07:00Farm Bureau's Stallman Puts Activists on notice: No More Mr. Nice GuyIn a hard-hitting speech, the Texan signals that farmers and ranchers have had enough of those who want to drag agriculture back to the day of 40 acres and a mule <br /><br />By Sara Wyant<br /><br />The farmers and ranchers I know are fiercely independent individuals who are willing to do whatever it takes to take care of their families, their animals and their land. But that doesn’t mean they go looking for fights. <br /><br />In fact, most of them face so many everyday challenges, like bone-chilling weather and tough economic conditions, that they would just like to stay out of the limelight and live in peace.<br /><br />But there are a growing number of these battle-scarred men and women who have had enough of the attacks from the growing list of critics, environmental groups and even some of their own elected officials. They have had a long couple of years listening to the Michael Pollans of the world, reading incredibly biased coverage in Time magazine and watching pseudo-documentaries like Food Inc. <br /><br />You can almost hear them say, “Enough Already!” They are mad as hell and they don’t want to take it any more.<br /><br />American Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman captured that sentiment in his powerful opening speech during the organization’s 91st annual convention in Seattle this week. Stallman, who was elected as the national organization's 11th president in 2000, delivered the most hard-hitting speech I have ever heard him give, and for many of the 4,500 in the audience, it was his best. <br /><br />It’s been a long time since we have had farm leaders inspire audiences with messages like Mary Elizabeth Lease used to deliver in the late 1800’s, when she reportedly told farmers to “raise less corn and more hell” <br /><br />Some farmers still remember when the charismatic Oren Lee Staley fired up members of the National Farmers Organization in the early 1960's to fight food processors for higher prices, telling them: "American farmers have retreated as far as they can. We do not intend to retreat any further."<br /><br />Clearly, there’s been a void in the number of top leaders, both from the public and private sector, who are willing to use the bully pulpit to stand up for American agriculture in more recent years. Stallman indicated that he is ready to take off the gloves and lead the fight. His audience loved it.<br /><br />(See: “AFBF President calls on farmers and ranchers to unite, fight extremists” http://www.agri-pulse.com/uploaded/20100110S.pdf<br /><br />It’s not that the Farm Bureau is unwilling to engage divergent interests. As Stallman stood before his convention attendees, an estimated 4,500 farmers and ranchers from all across America, he pointed out:<br /><br />“As I scan this hall, I see farmers who embrace all the tools of modern agriculture. I see people who choose modern organic production…I see folks who plant conventional seed and those who use biotechnology. I see families who raise livestock in sheltered, climate-controlled conditions. I see feedlot operators. But also among our ranks here in Seattle, I see farm and ranch families who produce grass-fed beef, free-range pork and cage-free eggs.”<br /><br />And AFBF is actively working with several environmental groups, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, World Wildlife Fund, and The Nature Conservancy on Field to Market: The Keystone Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture.<br /><br />But enough of that “Mr. Nice Guy” stuff. <br /><br />“A line must be drawn between our polite and respectful engagement with consumers and how we must aggressively respond to extremists who want to drag agriculture back to the day of 40 acres and a mule,” said Stallman. “The time has come to face our opponents with a new attitude. The days of their elitist power grabs are over.”<br /><br />Consider yourself warned.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.agri-pulse.com/">Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy</a><br /><br />#30Sarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00239397904866930004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1542800885252004461.post-18120917356448038682009-10-20T21:37:00.000-07:002010-06-16T11:32:01.245-07:00A world free of hunger?We have the intelligence and the technology, but can we overcome the political hurdles? <br /><br />By Sara Wyant<br /><br />When Dr. Norman Borlaug, father of the ‘green revolution’ passed away in September, leaders from around the globe memorialized the Nobel Peace Prize winner as the "greatest hunger fighter of our time." But even he acknowledged that his work was far from over, especially in places like Africa, where one-third of the population is hungry and malnourished.<br /><br />A diverse group of business leaders, including MicroSoft founder Bill Gates, is committed to building on Borlaug’s progress and turning the Iowa native’s vision into a global reality. Speaking at the World Food Prize ceremony in mid-Oct, Gates said that, while Borlaug’s passing was “cause for sadness, his life should make us optimistic. In the middle of the 20th century, experts predicted famine and starvation, but they turned out to be wrong – because they did not predict Norman Borlaug. He not only showed humanity how to get more food from the earth – he proved that farming has the power to lift up the lives of the poor.”<br /><br />So how did one of the world’s richest men, who co-chairs the $30-plus billion Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation along with his wife and father, come to be so passionate about agriculture and especially the role of science in agriculture? <br /> <br />“When we started our foundation, we agreed that our giving should be guided by our belief that all lives have equal value—that every person deserves the chance to live a healthy and productive life, Gates explained in his speech. “Over time, our search for the greatest leverage brought us to the most compelling challenge in development: how do you help people who live on less than a dollar a day? <br /><br />“The answer is in the work they do. Three-quarters of the world’s poorest people get their food and income by farming small plots of land. So if we can make small-holder farming more productive and more profitable, we can have a massive impact on hunger and nutrition and poverty. <br /><br />Trouble ahead?<br /> <br />When it comes to increasing productivity, Gates has clearly done his math, but he’s troubled by the forces who oppose some of the science-based tools necessary to reach those goals. <br /><br />“Africa is the only place where per capita cereal yields have been flat over the last 25 years,” he explained. “The average farmer in sub-Saharan Africa gets just over half a ton of cereal per acre. An Indian farmer gets twice that; a Chinese farmer, four times that; an American farmer; five times that. The technology and new approaches that are transforming agriculture in other parts of the world can be applied in new ways, and help Africa flourish too.<br />Gates says the global effort to help small farmers is endangered by an ideological wedge that threatens to split the movement in two. On one side “ a technological approach that increases productivity. On the other side is an environmental approach that promotes sustainability. Productivity or sustainability – they say you have to choose.<br /><br />“It’s a false choice, and it’s dangerous for the field. It blocks important advances. It breeds hostility among people who need to work together. And it makes it hard to launch a comprehensive program to help poor farmers.<br /><br />“The fact is, we need both productivity and sustainability – and there is no reason we can’t have both,” he emphasized. “The next Green Revolution has to be greener than the first. It must be guided by small-holder farmers, adapted to local circumstances, and sustainable for the economy and the environment. <br /><br />“The charge is clear – we have to develop crops that can grow in a drought; that can survive in a flood; that can resist pests and disease. We need higher yields on the same land in harsher weather. And we will never get it without a continuous and urgent science-based search to increase productivity – especially on small farms in the developing world,” says Gates.<br /><br />Other business leaders join<br /><br />At the same World Food event, several other leading agribusinesses provided their support for ending world hunger, as part of the new Global Harvest Initiative (GHI). This effort was founded by Archer Daniels Midland Company, DuPont, John Deere and Monsanto Company, but is open to other members. These companies already invest more than $9 million a day in research and development, according to GHI. <br /><br />“We agree that we must double our agricultural output if we are to meet the needs of the world population in 2050,” said Ellen Kullman, chief executive officer, DuPont. “We believe this must be done in a sustainable way to reduce agriculture’s environmental footprint and conserve the precious resources available to us. We know it’s going to require cooperative efforts across industries and geographies, and between private and public entities. With all of us working toward a common goal, we can leverage many opportunities throughout the agriculture value chains to feed our growing, global population.” <br />Bill Lesher, Global Harvest Initiative executive director agrees that the dynamics may finally be right to make significant headway.<br /><br /> “We are in a prime position to make the difference that Norman Borlaug envisioned. At no time have we encountered such a positive environment for change, such a diverse group of leaders primed to work together,” he adds.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.agri-pulse.com/">Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy</a>Sarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00239397904866930004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1542800885252004461.post-48346739641453418172009-09-16T11:26:00.000-07:002010-06-16T11:31:46.139-07:00JBS to buy Pilgrim’s Pride out of bankruptcy for $2.8 millionThe U.S. subsidiary of Brazil’s meat giant JBS S.A. is to buy a majority share of Pilgrim’s Pride, the largest U.S chicken processor, and allow Pilgrim’s and six of its subsidiaries to emerge from bankruptcy protection in December, the companies announced today. The deal is subject to approval of the bankruptcy court and agreement by U.S. antitrust regulators. <br /><br />Pilgrim’s was to file today a joint plan of reorganization and disclosure statement under bankruptcy code. The companies valued the transaction at approximately $2.8 billion with Pilgrim's selling 64 percent of the new common stock of the reorganized Pilgrim's Pride to JBS S.A., through its JBS USA Holdings subsidiary for $800 million cash. Proceeds from the sale of new common stock of the reorganized Pilgrim's will pay approved creditors in full, either in cash or by issuance of a new note, the Texas company’s statement said. <br /><br />Existing Pilgrim's Pride common stock will be canceled and shareholders will receive the same number of new common stock shares representing 36 percent of the reorganized company. The plan also calls for exit financing of $1.75 billion provided by a lending group arranged by CoBank and Rabobank. Pilgrim’s said it anticipates the plan will be confirmed by the bankruptcy court in time to emerge from bankruptcy by the end of December, one year after it was filed.<br /><br />By James C. Webster <br />Copyright Agri-Pulse Communications, Inc.<br /><a href="http://www.agri-pulse.com/">Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy</a>Sarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00239397904866930004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1542800885252004461.post-49908011694437074012009-08-26T07:05:00.000-07:002010-06-16T11:31:33.059-07:00The Big UneasyTraditionally, members of Congress leave the sweltering August heat that engulfs Washington, D.C. this time of year to visit with voters back home, stump for fellow lawmakers at fundraisers, and maybe even spend some time with their own families. But this summer has been anything but traditional as throngs of angry voters turned out to see elected officials on their home turf<br /><br />Some voters have been so angry about pending health care legislation that the town-hall meetings look like screaming matches. That prompted leaders like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to call such unruly behavior “un-American.” Her comments only served to pour more fuel on the health care “fire,” as many citizens reminded her that talking to their lawmakers is as American as apple pie.<br /><br />Public reaction to climate change legislation hasn’t been much better. Several members of Congress have been booed as they walked along parade routes. Onlookers waved huge signs, with phrases like “Just say ‘no’ to climate change” and complained about what they see as a huge new burden on the U.S. economy<br /><br />Rural road trip<br /><br />I spent most of my summer break driving across parts of the middle section of the United States and trying to get a sense of the collective “pulse” of the countryside along the way. Over a two-week time span, my husband, my 92-year old mother-in-law and I drove across Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Missouri, visiting some relatives, stopping at small-town cafes, and chatting with local farmers and business people. My summer “road trip” provided a great way to see the tremendous food production system we have in this country, while visiting with a wide variety of ordinary people about how they view what’s happening in Washington, DC. Here are some of my observations and their comments.<br /><br /><strong>Too many unknowns</strong>. Whatever the topic, there seems to be an underlying feeling of nervousness about the direction of the country ----whether it’s the economy in general, falling commodity prices, the concern over job losses, or the huge federal deficit that’s looking like an iron-clad anchor on the next generation’s future. Some of this uncertainty may be expected with any new Administration that’s trying to get its feet on the ground and push for a very strong “change” agenda. However, it seemed like the nervousness extended from Obama supporters to conservative Republicans and many political perspectives in between. Some supporters are dissatisfied that change hasn’t happened more quickly, while others want to go slow because they worry that the rush to pass legislation will only lead to unintended consequences.<br /><br />Concerns about the deficit were almost everywhere I traveled, an unease that will only worsen with news this week that the budget deficit will increase from $7 trillion to about $9 trillion over the coming decade.<br /><br /><strong>Stimulus. What stimulus? </strong>In Illinois, home of President Barack Obama and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, you’ll see a few road signs telling you that construction projects are paid for with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding. The road and bridge improvements are welcomed in a state where traffic congestion is almost a daily burden. And although it may be hard to quantify, there were undoubtedly some new jobs created as a result of the construction.<br /><br />But six months after the President signed the whopping $787 billion stimulus package with the intention of jump-starting an ailing U.S. economy, the majority of Americans are not seeing results where it counts: their pocketbooks. The Administration has been issuing press releases on almost a daily basis this summer about how the stimulus funding is working, but not getting much public relations boost for their efforts. In fact, many people told me that White House promises to save or create 3.7 million jobs, has actually backfired. Every new article that underscores how much the government is spending seems to generate more skepticism than optimism. “All they do in Washington is spend, spend, spend,” a North Dakota farmer told me. “Pretty soon the Chinese are going to own our government,” he added, referring to the large portion of the U.S. deficit that is financed by Chinese investors.<br /><br />In a small-town in southwest Missouri, local officials told me they rejected stimulus funds for a sewer project, because it came with too many costly “strings” attached.<br />“We decided that using traditional rural development programs would be a better route because it would be cost less and be more manageable for our small staff,” an engineer on the project told me.<br /><br /><strong>Health care.</strong> President Barack Obama captured 54% of the popular vote in Minnesota and many people from the land of 10,000 lakes find him personally appealing. But many are extremely reluctant to buy his health care reform proposal for a variety of reasons. An Obama supporter who is still going through breast cancer treatment told me that she feared that her doctor would not be able to prescribe the kinds of medicine she needs if some type of health care reform package is passed. “Now I’ve got options and a doctor who looks out for me, rather than a government program making those decisions,” she told me. “I’m scared to death about what choices I might have under new legislation.”<br /><br />It’s not that people don’t want to see health care coverage improved. Several complained about the skyrocketing cost of health insurance. Farmers and other self-employed individuals want to be able to deduct the costs, just like other businesses. But many of these same critics like their current doctors and the availability of medical care. The idea of a far-reaching reform package, costing billions of dollars, seems to create more potential problems than solutions.<br /><br /><strong>Climate change:</strong> Farmers either love or hate the prospects of climate change legislation, and there is almost no middle ground. Over 5.5 million acres have been enrolled nationwide in the National Farmers Union’s Carbon Credit program, providing some additional income for many cash-strapped farmers. Little wonder then that several NFU members in North Dakota are some of the biggest supporters of climate change legislation. They believe that taking a proactive approach and trying to shape legislation as it moves to the Senate is the best route for those in agriculture. But these folks seem to be in the minority. Many farmers equate the climate change bill to increased costs and less international competitiveness. Several state Farm Bureau associations are leading the charge against new legislation.<br /><br />Outcome uncertain<br /><br />President Obama says he still wants to see Congress act on health care and climate change legislation before the end of the year. His supporters are planning massive advertising blitzes and grassroots campaigns to build support for these key initiatives.<br /><br />When Congress reconvenes on Sept. 8, some of the hot, humid weather may have subsided in favor of cooler, fall days. But after getting an earful from angry voters this month, the heat will still be on lawmakers to listen to these concerns from the countryside.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.agri-pulse.com/">Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy</a><br /><br />#30Sarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00239397904866930004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1542800885252004461.post-91970063742837585832009-08-02T14:29:00.000-07:002010-06-16T11:31:21.564-07:00Food and Nutrition celebration: An opportunity lost?USDA officials held an important event recently, celebrating the 40th anniversary of the department’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). As I scanned the 100-plus people assembled for the event in the Whitten Building’s central patio, I found several dignitaries, but kept looking for “aggies” in the room. Unfortunately, I spotted only a handful.<br /><br />Why were so few representatives of the nation’s primary farm and commodity groups at the invitation-only event? The folks at FNS say it was an abbreviated invite list and focused only on those groups they work with most often. But the fact that many agricultural groups weren’t on the “A” list, underscores a continuing gap between those who most need the food and those who produce most of the food.<br /><br />In case you are not familiar, FNS administers the nation’s domestic nutrition assistance programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP (formerly the Food Stamp Program); the National School Lunch Program, and 13 others. Their efforts touch one in five people across the U.S. with some type of feeding program.<br /><br />Since 1969, when FNS was officially established the SNAP/Food Stamp Program has issued over $554 billion in program benefits; NSLP has served over 169 billion meals; and $27 billion in USDA commodities have been issued in food benefits for schools and another $23 billion in food benefits for household and emergency feeding programs.<br /><br />Farmers and FNS “customers” are linked in a variety of ways. Spending on these programs makes up about two-thirds of USDA’s budget and utilizes billions of dollars in farm commodities. Congressional supporters of FNS are a crucial part of the political coalition that enables passage of major farm bills.<br /><br />The hour-long ceremony, led by USDA’s Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan, was everything you might expect from an anniversary celebration: a historical timeline, a progress report, and video to highlight the agency’s accomplishments. Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) and Congressman James P. McGovern (D-MA) presented Merrigan with a resolution honoring FNS for 40 years of fighting hunger and improving nutrition. It was heartening to learn about the millions who have benefited and USDA’s plans to reach out to even more individuals who still go to bed hungry every night.<br /><br />However, there was little recognition of the important connection between food production and food consumption in the FNS programs. The anniversary video started with one slide of a farm field, but the rest focused on how each of the programs worked and the types of consumers served. There was no discussion about how farm productivity has helped keep costs low so that millions of Americans can eat a safe, affordable food supply. And there was no mention of how plant breeding and biotechnology have played an important role in creating healthier foods.<br /><br />In recorded remarks, Secretary Vilsack pointed out that President Obama is committed to reducing childhood hunger by 2015. To do that, the Secretary will need plenty of additional funds and lots of good thinkers on this subject. The folks at the FNS will certainly play a key role, but let’s hope they reach out to those who represent farmers and ranchers as part of the process.<br /><br />At the same time, traditional agriculture groups also need to look for innovative new ways to be engaged with the food and nutrition community. Groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation have already done so by working with Feeding America (formerly America’s Second Harvest) to donate millions of pounds of food. Working through their Young Farmers and Ranchers organization, Farm Bureau provided the equivalent of 6.4 million meals through Feeding America-affiliated food banks across the country last year<br /><br />There’s an old bumper sticker that says: “If your child ate today, hug a farmer.” More farm and commodity organizations need to figure out how that embrace can go both ways.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.agri-pulse.com/">Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy</a>Sarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00239397904866930004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1542800885252004461.post-11962678701227822282009-07-20T04:19:00.000-07:002010-06-16T11:31:10.534-07:00Health care reform: Why the rush?President Barack Obama says Congress needs to tackle health care reform before the August recess, but many members of his own party are asking: “Why the rush?”<br /><br />The answer is twofold: Most presidents enjoy the typical “honeymoon” with voters during the first six months after their elections and the former Illinois Senator is no exception. His popularity ratings, while slumping in the last couple of months, are still fairly high,<br />According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released July 20, 59% of Americans still think Obama is doing a good job, but that’s down from a peak of 72% when he took office.<br /><br />Moving quickly, therefore, means he can leverage his personal popularity and push otherwise fence-sitting lawmakers into helping him achieve his top priorities. Thus, the need for speed.<br /><br />But I hope the president also understands another underlying component of this debate. The rest of his term will be the equivalent of a living, governing hell without fixing the rising costs of government-provided health care, primarily Medicare and Medicaid.<br /><br />The new Congressional Budget Office Director, Doug Elmondorf, explained why health care reform is so important to all of us when he testified before the Senate Budget Committee last week. It read like a version of “Scary Movie,” without the laughs. Here are a couple of excerpts:<br /><br />“Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path---meaning that federal debt will continue to grow must faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law.”<br /><br />“For decades, spending on the federal government’s major health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid, has been growing faster than the economy. CBO projects that if current laws do not change, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid combined, will grow from roughly 5% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) today to almost 10% by 2035 and more than 17% by 2080.”<br /><br />“Federal spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will grow relative to the economy both because health care spending per beneficiary is projected to increase and because the population is aging.”<br /><br />“CBO estimates that in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the federal government will record its largest budget deficits as a share of GDP since shortly after World War II. As a result of those deficits, federal debt held by the public will soar from 41% of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2008 to 60% at the end of fiscal year 2010.<br /><br />Had enough? Let’s hope the Chinese and others who hold the majority of our debt, have not.<br />But here are two more “nuggets” from his testimony that drive home the threats to every farmer, rancher and business owner in the U.S.<br /><br />"CBO’s long-term budget projections raise fundamental questions about economic sustainability. If outlays grew as projected and revenues did not rise at a corresponding rate, annual deficits would climb and federal debt would grow significantly. Large budget deficits would reduce national savings, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn, would depress income growth in the U.S. Over time, the accumulation of debt would seriously harm the economy. Alternatively, if spending grew as projected and taxes were raised in tandem, tax rates would have to reach levels never seen in the U.S.”<br /><br />“Policymakers could mitigate the economic damage from rapidly rising debt by putting the nation on a sustainable fiscal course, which would require some combination of lower spending and higher revenues than the amounts now projected. Making such changes sooner rather than later would lessen the risks that current fiscal policy poses to the economy.”<br /><br />President Obama has said that this expansion of health care coverage to millions of Americans must not drive up the deficit over the next 10 years. That's a worthy goal, but the health care reform packages emerging from House Committees don’t appear to meet that test. Something this big and this important is going to take more time to get it right.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.agri-pulse.com/">Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy</a><br /><br /># 30Sarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00239397904866930004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1542800885252004461.post-55641714752444632822009-07-10T06:48:00.000-07:002010-06-16T11:31:00.081-07:00ACRE participants trickle in....at least for nowRemember all of those predictions about how the new Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) program would attract hundreds of thousands of farmers and potentially be a budget-buster? During the 2008 Farm Bill debate, one USDA analysis suggested that the program would be so attractive that the department would pay out around $16 billion just to corn, wheat and soybean farmers in 2009 alone. But thus far, only 1,426 producers have signed on the dotted line, ranging from a "whopping" 372 in Nebraska to one in Texas. (See state by state numbers, below.) Little wonder that advocates are looking for new ways to promote this innovative new program and also find ways to avoid what may be a last minute rush prior to the August 14th signup deadline.<br /><br />“I think (ACRE) will grow,” Ron Litterer, National Corn Growers Association Chairman recently told a House Agriculture Subcommittee. “But let me remind the subcommittee that ACRE enrollment didn’t begin until April 27, right in the middle of planting season. A lot of farmers haven’t had the opportunity” to study ACRE. Originally the sign-up deadline was back in June, but because of the time needed to implement the program, the deadline was pushed back to Aug. 14.<br /><br />Holding off on the decision to participate may be a good thing for producers because it provides more time to assess the latest market prices and how the specific crops in their state and farm are doing. But if all of those folks wait until the last week, local FSA offices could be overwhelmed and unable to process all of the paperwork.<br /><br />In anticipation of possible work load issues in county offices, Litterer proposed a modification in sign up procedures that makes a lot of sense. He suggested enabling producers and landowners interested in ACRE to file an “Intention” to Elect and Enroll into ACRE now and pull the trigger later.<br /><br />“This declaration of an intention would encourage producers and landowners to visit their local FSA Offices now and complete all the required paperwork well in advance of the August 14th deadline. If producers and landowners do not notify the FSA Office that they want to continue with ACRE, their ACRE election and enrollment would revert to DCP (Direct and counter-cyclical program). By allowing producers to make a final decision on ACRE after submitting the initial enrollment documents, the signup process would have already been completed thereby alleviating long waiting lines at the FSA county office,” he explained.<br /><br />Farmers tell me they still have a boatload of questions when it comes to ACRE and they don’t always feel confident that local Farm Service Agency (FSA) offices have all of the answers. But I expect USDA to push out a lot more information in the next few weeks. In the meantime, there are plenty of resources available from USDA, NCGA and many university Extension offices. Here are just a few resources:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/acrebkgrd.pdf">http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/acrebkgrd.pdf</a><br /><a href="http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=dccp&topic=landing">http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=dccp&topic=landing</a><br /><a href="http://ncga.com/acre-resource-center">http://ncga.com/acre-resource-center</a><br /><a href="http://www.extension.iastate.edu/polk/farmmanagement.htm">http://www.extension.iastate.edu/polk/farmmanagement.htm</a><br /><a href="http://www.agmanager.info/">http://www.agmanager.info/</a><br /><a href="http://aede.osu.edu/people/publications.php?user=zulauf.1">http://aede.osu.edu/people/publications.php?user=zulauf.1</a><br /><br /><br />State Number of ACRE Participants (as of July 7, 2009)<br /><br />Alabama 2<br />Colorado 3<br />Delaware 5<br />Idaho 11<br />Illinois 225<br />Indiana 129<br />Iowa 184<br />Kansas 45<br />Kentucky 25<br />Michigan 3<br />Minnesota 16<br />Mississippi 2<br />Missouri 20<br />Montana 3<br />Nebraska 372<br />New York 1<br />North Dakota 30<br />Ohio 148<br />Oklahoma 10<br />Oregon 6<br />Pennsylvania 21<br />South Dakota 116<br />Tennessee 5<br />Texas 1<br />Utah 1<br />Virginia 1<br />Washington 14<br />Wisconsin 25<br />Wyoming 2<br />Total 1,426<br /><br /><a href="http://www.agri-pulse.com/">Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy</a><br /><br /><br />#30Sarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00239397904866930004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1542800885252004461.post-58221098972414245192009-07-02T15:42:00.000-07:002010-06-16T11:30:45.750-07:00Wanted: People to participate in the Obama Administration’s Rural TourMaybe it was the short notice. Maybe it was the location. Maybe farmers and other rural folks in northwestern Pennsylvania were just too busy July 1 to turn out for the Vice President of the United States, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and a swarm of other heavy hitters for the Obama team.<br /><br />Or maybe, just maybe, they were more interested in hanging on to their own jobs than learning about billions for new broadband investments that will generate jobs a few years from now. After all, the community gained access to broadband over one year ago.<br /><br />Whatever the reason, the first stop of the Obama Administration’s new “Rural Tour” fell noticeably flat in terms of attendance.<br /><br />Columnist Salena Zito of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported in her blog that only around 100 or so people showed up just before Biden was ready to talk. The noon-time event was held in the Seneca High School off Route 8 in Wattsburg, PA., population 378. Vice-President Biden and Vilsack were joined by Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, Federal Communications Commission Chair Julius Genakowski and U.S. Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, (D-Erie).<br /><br />“The room looked so sparse that about 30 or so chairs were removed by volunteers to give the illusion of a full house,” Zito wrote. “The effect didn't exactly work.”<br /><br />By the time the event got started, Zito told me that a few more folks showed up. If you counted the volunteers, the staff and the 40-60 schoolchildren in the room, the turnout could have been as high as 180, she said.<br /><br />One can only wonder what Rep. Dahlkemper, a Blue Dog Democrat who already bucked the Obama Administration to vote against last week’s climate change bill, must be feeling about the low turnout. Ordinarily, the opportunity to bring even one heavy-hitter into your district would be a big deal. In this case, she had four in tow.<br /><br />Granted, there were a few “bonus” opportunities for Pennsylvania Democrats. Prior to the event, Vilsack met with some dairy farmers to discuss low milk prices, but apparently, they didn’t hear anything that gave them hope for a turnaround anytime soon. And after the swing through Western Pennsylvania, Biden also managed to squeeze in a Pittsburgh fundraiser.<br /><br />A White House spokesperson says the “Rural Tour” is not politically motivated, but it’s hard to ignore the key players and the map. The tour opened in Dahlkemper’s district, a Democrat who ousted seven-term Republican Rep. Phil English in the 2008 election.<br /><br />On July 18, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack will talk about renewable energy in Ringgold, VA.. Conveniently, Ringgold is part of a southern Virginia district represented by Rep. Tom Perriello, a Democrat who narrowly defeated Republican incumbent Virgil H. Goode Jr. last year.<br /><br />My guess is that the White House will do a better job working the phones and generating attendance for future stops on the Rural Tour. If not, some members of the advance team may also be looking for new jobs.<br /><br />I will be especially interested in the turnout on August 12th, when not one, but 5 cabinet members travel to Bethel, Alaska (population 6,356). The town is located 340 miles west of Anchorage and only accessible by air and river. How's that for a "captive" audience?<br /><br />Secretaries Tom Vilsack Steven Chu, Shaun Donovan, Arne Duncan, and Ken Salazar are scheduled to discuss rural infrastructure, green jobs and a new energy economy, as well as climate change on that day. The topics are good and I hope the crowd is, too. Bring your airplane or boat and you may have a chance to visit, one on one.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.agri-pulse.com/">Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy</a><br /><br />#30Sarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00239397904866930004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1542800885252004461.post-10947881147881753382009-05-19T07:43:00.000-07:002010-06-16T11:30:22.306-07:00Farm groups divided over climate change legislation<p>Most farmers and ranchers are worried about all of the day-to-day tasks of getting a crop in the ground, taking care of livestock and making sure that lenders are getting paid on time, so climate change legislation is probably the furthest thing from their minds. But like it or not, terms like cap and trade, offsets and emission allowances need to be added to farmers' long list of concerns. Understanding these terms could have more to do with long-term farm profitability than decisions like picking the best variety to plant or whether or not to cull some of your cows.<br /><br />That’s because, believe it or not or like it or not, climate change legislation is moving through the House of Representatives like a steamroller, driven by Speaker of the House Nancy <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Pelosi</span> and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Waxman</span>. The two California Democrats want to demonstrate to the world that they can address global warming, even though they had to cut so many side deals with members from coal and oil producing states that the legislation is a far cry from the original package.<br /><br />Although the far-reaching climate change bill is still a “work in progress,” Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee told reporters that they expect to have enough votes to move their bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, out of committee by the Memorial Day recess. In what has become typical fashion this year, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Waxman</span> released the whopping 932-page bill, (H.R. 2454) on a Friday with a pledge to start marking it up on Monday----providing almost no time to read and comprehend the entire measure.<br /><br />But thanks to modern technology, you can quickly search the legislation for words like “agriculture.” As expected, the word is barely mentioned.<br /><br />So is that good news? Many think that agriculture should be a prominent player in any type of climate change legislation because so many agricultural and forestry practices can sequester carbon and be a big part of the solution. According to the USDA, agriculture and forestry have the potential to reduce 15-25 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and provide new revenue streams for farmers and foresters in the process.<br /><br />In a letter to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Waxman</span> last week, National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson called for the Energy and Commerce Committee to establish a “robust and flexible” offset program and to make sure that agriculture is not subject to an emissions cap. In addition, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">NFU</span> called for the inclusion of several key provisions, including:<br />The USDA is granted control and administration of the agriculture offset program;<br />Early actors are recognized;<br />No artificial cap is placed on domestic offsets;<br />Carbon sequestration rates are based on science; and<br />Producers are permitted to stack environmental benefit credits.<br /><br />Earlier this year, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">NFU</span> was one of 12 agricultural groups that signed off on a list of "principles” for greenhouse gas legislation - The American Farmland Trust, American Soybean Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Cattlemen's</span> Beef Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Farmers Union and National Milk Producers Federation, National Association of Conservation Districts, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Farmers Union, Public Lands Council, United Fresh Produce Association, and the Western Growers Association. An updated fact sheet on those principles is available here: <a href="http://www.wheatworld.org/userfiles/file/Climate%20Response_ALL_4%2021%2009.pdf">http://www.wheatworld.org/userfiles/file/Climate%20Response_ALL_4%2021%2009.pdf</a><br /><br />But after <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Waxman</span> started pushing hard to move legislation without incorporating agriculture, some of those same groups came out opposed to the bill.<br /><br />The National Corn Growers Association (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">NCGA</span>) sent a letter to Congressman <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Waxman</span> earlier this week, expressing its concern with the current version and outlining the potential for negative economic impacts to the agriculture sector if a cap-and-trade system is not structured properly. </p><p><br />“After reviewing the legislation, we can see the bill does not clearly provide for a mechanism by which corn growers can sell carbon credits on the market,” <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">NCGA</span> President Bob Dickey said. “We strongly believe the bill will increase input costs without specific opportunities to offset those additions. We cannot support the American Clean Energy and Security Act in absence of the provisions that we have explained in some length to the Committee.”<br /><br />American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Stallman</span> struck an even harsher tone in releasing a statement on its opposition to the bill.<br /><br />“The (bill) is laden with so many policy prescriptions that its impact on the U.S. is almost impossible to measure and evaluate,” <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Stallman</span> said. “We can be certain of some things, however—it will increase our operating costs and reduce our competitiveness abroad.”<br /><br />According to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Stallman</span>, the measure does not adequately provide for alternative sources of energy that will “plug the hole” created when fossil fuel costs escalate dramatically. Farm Bureau is also concerned about the potential impact on fertilizer prices, given their sensitivity to natural gas costs.<br /><br />“The bill would effectively lock the United States into these changes regardless of what is done by other countries, such as China and India,” <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Stallman</span> said. “Such an approach is little more than gambling with U.S. jobs and productivity. Taken as a whole, the bill falls far short of what is necessary for agriculture to survive and grow.”<br /><br />So the battle lines are drawn. We know that some groups are working hard to have “a seat at the table” in order to influence whatever comes out of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Waxman</span>’s committee, while others are working feverishly to stop the legislation altogether. The measure could die a slow death “kill in the Senate, where . But the biggest wild card it that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) might attempt to lower greenhouse gas emissions through regulations if no legislation is adopted.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.agri-pulse.com/">Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy</a><br /><br />#30</p>Sarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00239397904866930004noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1542800885252004461.post-41723773596867112342009-05-14T11:02:00.001-07:002010-06-16T11:29:52.254-07:00Vilsack sends mixed messages on risk managementThere have been numerous times in my career when I've asked a fairly innocent question of a Secretary of Agriculture, only to get a rather eye-opening response. My first media briefing with former Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer provides a good example. I asked about his position on U.S. sugar policy and he gave me an answer straight from his home state of North Dakota, where he had served as an extremely popular governor. There was a communications staffer in the room, but she failed to understand the implications and intervene.<br /><br />Schafer was so intent on giving me his perspective, based on his former position as Governor, that he forgot that he was now playing in the big league. The President and U.S. Trade Representative were not amused when they read about his response, which ran basically counter to their international trade policies.<br /><br />Should he have been given some slack? Perhaps, because it was only his first meeting with reporters. But after awhile, you expect government officials to get the terminology and the policies down, and to not make comments when they don't know the answer.<br /><br />Now we've got another former Governor in the Secretary's seat and he is unfortunately, making some of the same mistakes---even after he's been serving for more than 100 days.<br /><br />Secretary Vilsack is definitely trying to walk the line with President Obama's policies, but some of his comments make me wonder whether or not he is shooting comments before he has a chance to really aim. Wednesday’s agricultural appropriations subcommittee hearing on his 2010 budget provides a good example.<br /><br />As we reported on <a href="http://www.agri-pulse.com/">http://www.agri-pulse.com/</a>, Vilsack sought to reassure lawmakers that "the President’s budget maintains the three-legged stool of farm payments, crop insurance, and disaster assistance.” Problem is, the "three-legged stool" he referred to is “farm bill lingo” for farm program payments: direct payments, counter-cyclical payments and marketing loans---not crop insurance and disaster payments.<br /><br />Vilsack also went after crop insurance companies for their excessive profits. Now, I understand that big business bashing is in vogue, but his comments represented a very mixed message to the record number of farmers who have been paying for crop insurance.<br /><br />The Secretary said that, while in the past it was hard to get farmers to sign up for crop insurance, today farmers often have to sign up as a condition of qualifying for bank loans or disaster relief “so there’s now more of a mandate.” Vilsack said the result is that private companies “have seen a huge increase in their market. . . so they are making a tremendous amount of money, billions of dollars. . . There is a tremendous amount of profit. . . We just think that this needs to be a fairer deal for taxpayers.”<br /><br />Hmmm...Why would lenders require crop insurance? Perhaps because farmers who pay for crop insurance policies, many of which are now based on expected revenue, have a valuable risk management tool that allows them to market a crop prior to harvest and actually repay their lenders. It also makes farmers less likely to go begging to Congress for annual disaster assistance or to rely on the new so-called “permanent” disaster program.<br /><br />Yes, companies received a lot of money for farmers last year but it was because they were insuring crops that, because of last year’s run-up in commodity prices, were worth billions of dollars. And in places like Iowa, where my family farms, the crop insurance industry paid almost $1.1 billion to the farmers for their losses, according to the most recent summary of business data released by USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA).<br /><br />So what type of situation would these companies be in if they charged less and then had to pay for losses on all of the crops they insured at those higher levels? Probably not too eager to stay in the crop insurance business. At present, there are only 16 firms approved by RMA under their Standard Reinsurance Agreement<br /><br />And it’s not only the insurance companies that could be impacted. How would farm lenders be faring if they didn't get their loans repaid? How many farmers would be in bad financial straits if they had not purchased crop insurance to cover their crop losses?<br /><br />It’s unclear to me whether or not Vilsack really wants to create a new three-legged stool. Maybe he wants taxpayers to pay more in subsidies for annual disaster payments and less in subsidies for crop insurance. Maybe he’s just running in so many different directions with so little staff, that he needs more time to get “up to speed” on these issues<br /><br />Regardless, I hope that he takes a more comprehensive look at what’s working for farmers in terms of crop insurance and what’s not, before taking a stand on this issue. Surely there can be some ways to reduce government costs, while still maintaining a strong risk management system that farmers, lenders and even the crop insurance companies can depend on.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.agri-pulse.com/">Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy</a><br /><br />#30Sarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00239397904866930004noreply@blogger.com0