Thoughts from an aggie and student. Taking full responsibility for my words printed here.
Showing posts with label Ag Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ag Politics. Show all posts
Friday, December 3, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
Developing New Technology Is A Win For Ag
by Mike Friddle
If there is one thing I have learned as a plant breeder, it may just be that the more diverse traits you have available to your breeding program, the more you excel. Today more than ever, we are seeing a pallet of traits that can make any science nerd froth at the mouth.
This is extremely important to think about when we look at Round-Up Ready (RR) technology and Genetically Engineered (GE) crops. With the advancement of research and the undying quest to improve, Monsanto has opened our world to something that quite possibly could make, or break, agriculture.
These new sets of traits are harmless to human consumption, yet the straight fear of some alien product sweeps over the face of concerned consumers across the globe. With the unveiling of the RR Sugar Beets in 2005, the doors for science were blown open to positive alternatives. There have been great advances in this field, yet some set backs. If any reader can remember the scare of the fish gene in corn that was only approved for animal consumption, they remember the adverse affects of not keeping track of the crop and ending up in Taco Bell taco shells. It did not paint a positive picture for GE technology and painted a once positive advancement as evil.
The aftermath of the Taco Bell incident and the GE tomato that had unforeseen allergies in a few consumers directed the recent history of the engineering of new crop technologies. If my memory serves me right, it also changed the background of food labeling.
Today we have a choice presented before us. Round-Up Ready technology has been researched and the facts are there. We have not seen prominent diverse affects of RR Corn and Soybeans, at least as far as my research has shown. With this in mind, I direct you to the USDA’s proposed rule change to allow RR Sugar Beets to be opened back up for market/production in the United States. What is there to loose?
Eric McGilp, a Latah County, Idaho resident and Political Activist, says in his comment to the AgriAction post, that his first worry is changing DNA. He also is worried about the mislabeling of these crops and their impact on the world’s food supply. I tend to agree that these are valid points and hope that the proper officials have evaluated this.
There are certain reasons that the Palouse has not yet grown GE crops, labeling and fear being the main drivers. The company I work for full-time has a NO-GMO policy, stating that a cross contamination will kill our ability to market product. Yet, with recent drive to label both animal and plant products, this is covered if managers carried out a solid plan. An argument of labeling is not a technology issue, it’s a management issue.
I will be advocating for the choice that will be allowed to producers in this. I feel very strong for free-market principles if the situation is possible, and GE crops fit this bill. The EPA, USDA, and Monsanto have exercised every avenue in this new crop and there hasn’t been any sort of evidence that this specific crop, RR Sugar Beets, present an eminent threat to the ag industry. What are the benefits? Cleaner fields, more efficient management, and better information for the agronomy division of the farms that adopt this crop, which in turn will help farmers make better management decisions and apply less chemical to their fields.
Approving the production of GE crops that have been researched is a win-win for this country. We are facing a steep incline in population and this, among other technological advances, will allow for our producers to accomplish this task.
I encourage you all to check out the instructions on how to comment on the proposal. The more voices the USDA and the EPA hears, the better. I will be casting my vote to allow RR Sugar Beets into the market, I ask you to join me.
If there is one thing I have learned as a plant breeder, it may just be that the more diverse traits you have available to your breeding program, the more you excel. Today more than ever, we are seeing a pallet of traits that can make any science nerd froth at the mouth.
This is extremely important to think about when we look at Round-Up Ready (RR) technology and Genetically Engineered (GE) crops. With the advancement of research and the undying quest to improve, Monsanto has opened our world to something that quite possibly could make, or break, agriculture.
These new sets of traits are harmless to human consumption, yet the straight fear of some alien product sweeps over the face of concerned consumers across the globe. With the unveiling of the RR Sugar Beets in 2005, the doors for science were blown open to positive alternatives. There have been great advances in this field, yet some set backs. If any reader can remember the scare of the fish gene in corn that was only approved for animal consumption, they remember the adverse affects of not keeping track of the crop and ending up in Taco Bell taco shells. It did not paint a positive picture for GE technology and painted a once positive advancement as evil.
The aftermath of the Taco Bell incident and the GE tomato that had unforeseen allergies in a few consumers directed the recent history of the engineering of new crop technologies. If my memory serves me right, it also changed the background of food labeling.
Today we have a choice presented before us. Round-Up Ready technology has been researched and the facts are there. We have not seen prominent diverse affects of RR Corn and Soybeans, at least as far as my research has shown. With this in mind, I direct you to the USDA’s proposed rule change to allow RR Sugar Beets to be opened back up for market/production in the United States. What is there to loose?
Eric McGilp, a Latah County, Idaho resident and Political Activist, says in his comment to the AgriAction post, that his first worry is changing DNA. He also is worried about the mislabeling of these crops and their impact on the world’s food supply. I tend to agree that these are valid points and hope that the proper officials have evaluated this.
There are certain reasons that the Palouse has not yet grown GE crops, labeling and fear being the main drivers. The company I work for full-time has a NO-GMO policy, stating that a cross contamination will kill our ability to market product. Yet, with recent drive to label both animal and plant products, this is covered if managers carried out a solid plan. An argument of labeling is not a technology issue, it’s a management issue.
I will be advocating for the choice that will be allowed to producers in this. I feel very strong for free-market principles if the situation is possible, and GE crops fit this bill. The EPA, USDA, and Monsanto have exercised every avenue in this new crop and there hasn’t been any sort of evidence that this specific crop, RR Sugar Beets, present an eminent threat to the ag industry. What are the benefits? Cleaner fields, more efficient management, and better information for the agronomy division of the farms that adopt this crop, which in turn will help farmers make better management decisions and apply less chemical to their fields.
Approving the production of GE crops that have been researched is a win-win for this country. We are facing a steep incline in population and this, among other technological advances, will allow for our producers to accomplish this task.
I encourage you all to check out the instructions on how to comment on the proposal. The more voices the USDA and the EPA hears, the better. I will be casting my vote to allow RR Sugar Beets into the market, I ask you to join me.
Farm Subsidies: Are They Needed?
This guest blog is written by Robert Blair of Leland, ID. Robert has a 1500 acre farm where he and his wife, Rhonda, raise their two sons, Logan and Dillon. Robert is the Nez Perce County Farm Bureau President and the State Director for the Nez Perce County Grain Growers. Robert was the 2009 Precision Farmer of the year and is the 2011 Eisenhower Fellow in Agriculture. He is also a University of Idaho Grad.
It seems like there is a perennial discussion about farm subsidies, especially as we prepare for another Farm Bill. What seems to be a weed to some is a crop to others, depending upon which side of the fence you are on (and how green it is on your side.)
Subsidies for the most part are looked down upon by the public because of bad press and lack of understanding. There are also growers who feel that subsidies should be done away with similar to pull combines and stationary threshers. However, there are growers out there where subsidies are the difference between staying on the farm or finding a job in town.
In my experience, the farmers that want subsidies dropped like a hot branding iron are the ones that have plenty of money, usually from a source outside of the farm. They understand if subsidies are cut, their operation has the potential to grow in acres. They are greedy, capitalist, pigs - and as well they should be. God Bless America.
But what are subsidies? Farmers do not pay the full price for crop insurance; there are usually tax exemptions in fuel, personal property, and sales tax that could eat up money, and farm loans. Do the farmers that want them cut really understand the depth in which their operation is subsidized? Subsidies help the U.S. compete with other countries that put on tariffs or use subsidies to keep out U.S. products. To take it one more step, subsidies help to ensure a stable and reliable agricultural industry.
We Americans pay the lowest cost for food of any country in the world, thanks to subsidies and the strength of American agriculture. Everyone, from farmers to their city cousins, needs to realize what the future of agriculture is looking at. Most experts say that current global ag production needs to double by the year 2050. This is no small task.
How is a shrinking population segment in America, and the world, supposed to meet this new task? For generations, members of farm families have decided to give up the long hours and hard work for a more “secure” job in town or within agriculture. Agriculture is losing the youngest generations to the bright lights and bustle of town while the older generation, which grew up on a farm and knew how to do anything, is dying off. Who is going to fill their shoes? I don’t see any of the critics rushing out to a field near you any time soon.
As the fight for the next Farm Bill takes place, the same arguments will come out about subsidies. Do we need them or should we let them go? If we let them go, how many farmers will be lost in the following decade? I don’t know the answer, but I get chills thinking about it.
If we lose the number of farmers in America, who will, and how many will, be left to sign onto a letter fighting environmental activists and their ilk? I have yet to see any of the farmers that call for dropping subsidies serve on boards or committees in my area. What a shame for those farmers to be relying on subsidized farmers to do their dirty work in the halls of the Legislature or Congress.
Also, I have never heard of the farmers that criticize subsidies giving them back or donating them to charity. I have never heard of them paying extra fuel or sales taxes or paying the non-subsidized rate for crop insurance. If I am mistaken, please provide me with the proof of purchase.
For the time being I am for keeping farm subsidies until there are no trade barriers, real or artificial, left in the world. Ag needs everyone one out there to help keep the wolves and tree huggers from the door. Until everyone fully understands the ramifications of removing subsidies, they should thank all U.S. agriculture at every meal.
follow The Homestead on Facebook
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
A Case Against Farm Subsidies
This guest blog is written by Sterling Stoddard, a student at the University of Idaho. Sterling is majoring in Agribusiness in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Stoddard is the President of the Young Americans for Liberty-U of I chapter. He is from Grace, Idaho in Caribou County. His family farms 3500 acres, 2500 acres of malt barley and 1000 acres of potatoes. Sterling plans on entering into farm management upon graduation.
OVERVIEW
In a country that despises massive debt, government programs seem to be ever growing. The government seems to have the mindset of continuing status quo and trying to use centralized planning to run our nation’s economy. If history has shown us anything, it’s that in a highly competitive market industrialists love to turn to the government to protect themselves from competition and give themselves an advantage, agriculture is no exception.
Each year the USDA pays out between $10 and $30 billion is cash subsidies to farmers and farmland owners. These account for over 800,000 people. However, the largest producers receive the most in benefits.
Federal subsidies in agriculture have a long history although subsidies were relatively small until the 1920's. The majority of subsidies came in the form of conducting research and gathering statistics for the industry. As part of FDR's ingenious idea known as 'The New Deal,' farm subsidies grew to include commodity price supports and production controls, marketing orders to limit competition, import barriers, and crop insurance. Agriculture was in no way the only industry to be heavily regulated in the 30’s. Unlike agriculture, many other industries have been deregulated and have seen great success.
Today, farmers represent a small portion of the population but they still have a very strong lobby. One reason is that farm-state legislators have co-opted the support of urban legislators, who seek increased subsidies in agriculture bills for programs such as food stamps. Legislators in favor of environmental subsidies have also been co-opted as supporters of farm bills. Unfortunately the support for the common tax payer isn’t near as strong.
This industry welfare program is especially costly to tax payers. Since it consists largely of government actions to hold up the price of crops, it is paid partly by taxes and higher food prices. Higher food prices have the effect of a regressive tax, since low-income people spend a greater portion of their income on food.
The game that the government plays with farm subsidies is a vicious cycle. Subsidies induce farmers to overproduce, which pushes down prices and creates political demands for further subsidies. Subsidies inflate land prices in rural America. The flow of subsidies from Washington hinders farmers from innovating, cutting costs, diversifying their land use, taking the actions needed to prosper in a competitive global economy.
EXAMPLES OF SUBSIDIES
Recently, direct payments have been among the largest form of subsidies. Direct payments are cash payments for producers of: wheat, corn, sorghum, barley, oats, cotton, rice, soybeans, minor oilseeds, and peanuts. Direct payments were intended to be transitional, a way to wean farmers from old-fashioned price guarantee programs. Unfortunately, direct payments have not been reduced over time as originally planned. Direct payments are based on a historical measure of the farm’s acrage used for production and are NOT related to current production or prices. The Washington Post estimated that between 2000 and 2006 the USDA handed out $1.3 billion in direct payments to people who do not farm. The newspaper pointed to thousands of acres of land previously used for rice growing in Texas.
Marketing Loans were created as a part of the 'New Deal.' They were meant to be, like most farm subsidies, a temporary solution. Yet, they still exist 70 years later. Marketing Loans create a price floor for crops (same ones covered in direct payments). Price floors in agriculture and all industry creates incentive for producers to overproduce. Under the program, farmers take loans with their crops as collateral. This allows farmers to keep the loan, and forfeit their low value crop. Tax payers are then stuck with the loan cost and the cost to store the crop. Farmers don’t receive subsidies from the marketing loan program only when crop prices are low, they have become experts at working the system to maximize their subsidies every year. Farmers can lock in high government benefits when seasonal prices are low, and then sell their crops when market prices are higher.
Countercyclical Payments are a classic example of agriculture receiving special protection that most industries don’t, and shouldn’t, receive. Countercyclical payments are basically a price guarantee which allows for over production because farmers are receiving a payment that is higher then what the market allows so they will produce more then what the market allows.
My personal favorite subsidy is Conservation Subsidies. The largest conservation subsidy program is the Conservation Reserve Program, which was created in 1985 to idle millions of acres of farmland. Under CRP, farmers are paid to not grow crops, but to cultivate ground cover such as grass or trees on retired acres. A large share of land idled under the CRP is owned by retired farmers, thus one does not even have to be a working farmer to get these subsidies. In Idaho, Shoshone Bannock Tribe was the 2nd largest recipient of farm subsidies in 2009. Shoshone Bannock Tribe received $510,364 in total payments, $503,629 was in Conservation Subsidies. In 2009 Shoshone Bannock Tribe received over half a million dollars to do absolutely nothing!
REASON TO REPEAL
Farm subsidies are a clear example of redistribution of wealth. In this case it’s distributing wealth from less income to more income. The average farmer income is higher than the average American’s income. Ten percent of all farmers collected 74 percent of all subsidies. Top 10% based on size of producer received $29,675 average per year between 1995 and 2009 while the bottom 80% receive $579 average per year between 1995 and 2009. The largest recipients of these subsidies are the largest producers. The myth that these program are meant to help the small farm just doesn’t hold water.
Farm subsidies hurt the overall economy. In most industries, prices are set by the balance of supply and demand. Profits signal investment opportunities while downturn results in innovation and cost cutting. However, these market mechanisms are not found in a government controlled industry like agriculture. As a result, federal agricultural policies produce substantial “deadweight losses” and reduced U.S. incomes. What does result is overproduction, overuse of marginal farmland, and land price inflation.
Like all government subsidies programs, farm subsidies are prone to waste and scandal. Farm programs are subject to bureaucratic inefficiencies, recipient fraud, and congressional pork-barrel politics. The Government Accountability Office (GAO)found that as much as half a billion dollars in farm subsidies are paid improperly or fraudulently each year. Farmers create complex legal structures to get around legal subsidy limits. Another reason why large producers receive a disproportionately high amount of subsidies is because they have the recourses to get through the legal hoops that the small producer doesn’t have.
Farm subsidies damage U.S. trade relations. U.S. and European farm subsidies and agricultural import barriers are a serious hurdle to making progress in global trade agreements. Free trade helps global economic stability and security. "If goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will." The World Trade Organization (WTO) estimates that even a one-third drop in all tariffs around the world would boost global output by $686 billion, including $164 billion for the United States.
Farming would see great success without subsidies. It is true that agriculture would change with the repealing of farm subsidies. Different crops would be planted, land usage would change, and some farms would go bankrupt. However a stronger and more innovative industry would likely emerge having greater resilience to shocks and downturns. It’s important to remember that commodities that are covered by subsidies only account for about 36% of all production. Most farm production isn’t even currently eligible for subsidies and they still strive within a free market.
Agriculture has changed a lot since the days farm subsidies were established. USDA figures show that only 38 percent of farm households consider farming their primary occupation. So the majority of farm households earn the bulk of their income from non-farm sources which creates financial stability. An interesting example of farmers prospering without subsidies is in New Zealand. That nation ended its farm subsidies in 1984, which was a bold stroke because the country is four times more dependent on farming than is the United States. The changes were initially met with fierce resistance, but New Zealand farm productivity, profitability, and output have soared since the reforms. New Zealand’s farmers have cut costs, diversified their land use, sought off-farm income, and developed niche markets such as kiwifruit.
In my opinion it has become obvious that it is time to largely cut government programs to help fix our problems in this country and I think agriculture subsidies and trade barriers are a clear place to start.
OVERVIEW
In a country that despises massive debt, government programs seem to be ever growing. The government seems to have the mindset of continuing status quo and trying to use centralized planning to run our nation’s economy. If history has shown us anything, it’s that in a highly competitive market industrialists love to turn to the government to protect themselves from competition and give themselves an advantage, agriculture is no exception.
Each year the USDA pays out between $10 and $30 billion is cash subsidies to farmers and farmland owners. These account for over 800,000 people. However, the largest producers receive the most in benefits.
Federal subsidies in agriculture have a long history although subsidies were relatively small until the 1920's. The majority of subsidies came in the form of conducting research and gathering statistics for the industry. As part of FDR's ingenious idea known as 'The New Deal,' farm subsidies grew to include commodity price supports and production controls, marketing orders to limit competition, import barriers, and crop insurance. Agriculture was in no way the only industry to be heavily regulated in the 30’s. Unlike agriculture, many other industries have been deregulated and have seen great success.
Today, farmers represent a small portion of the population but they still have a very strong lobby. One reason is that farm-state legislators have co-opted the support of urban legislators, who seek increased subsidies in agriculture bills for programs such as food stamps. Legislators in favor of environmental subsidies have also been co-opted as supporters of farm bills. Unfortunately the support for the common tax payer isn’t near as strong.
This industry welfare program is especially costly to tax payers. Since it consists largely of government actions to hold up the price of crops, it is paid partly by taxes and higher food prices. Higher food prices have the effect of a regressive tax, since low-income people spend a greater portion of their income on food.
The game that the government plays with farm subsidies is a vicious cycle. Subsidies induce farmers to overproduce, which pushes down prices and creates political demands for further subsidies. Subsidies inflate land prices in rural America. The flow of subsidies from Washington hinders farmers from innovating, cutting costs, diversifying their land use, taking the actions needed to prosper in a competitive global economy.
EXAMPLES OF SUBSIDIES
Recently, direct payments have been among the largest form of subsidies. Direct payments are cash payments for producers of: wheat, corn, sorghum, barley, oats, cotton, rice, soybeans, minor oilseeds, and peanuts. Direct payments were intended to be transitional, a way to wean farmers from old-fashioned price guarantee programs. Unfortunately, direct payments have not been reduced over time as originally planned. Direct payments are based on a historical measure of the farm’s acrage used for production and are NOT related to current production or prices. The Washington Post estimated that between 2000 and 2006 the USDA handed out $1.3 billion in direct payments to people who do not farm. The newspaper pointed to thousands of acres of land previously used for rice growing in Texas.
Marketing Loans were created as a part of the 'New Deal.' They were meant to be, like most farm subsidies, a temporary solution. Yet, they still exist 70 years later. Marketing Loans create a price floor for crops (same ones covered in direct payments). Price floors in agriculture and all industry creates incentive for producers to overproduce. Under the program, farmers take loans with their crops as collateral. This allows farmers to keep the loan, and forfeit their low value crop. Tax payers are then stuck with the loan cost and the cost to store the crop. Farmers don’t receive subsidies from the marketing loan program only when crop prices are low, they have become experts at working the system to maximize their subsidies every year. Farmers can lock in high government benefits when seasonal prices are low, and then sell their crops when market prices are higher.
Countercyclical Payments are a classic example of agriculture receiving special protection that most industries don’t, and shouldn’t, receive. Countercyclical payments are basically a price guarantee which allows for over production because farmers are receiving a payment that is higher then what the market allows so they will produce more then what the market allows.
My personal favorite subsidy is Conservation Subsidies. The largest conservation subsidy program is the Conservation Reserve Program, which was created in 1985 to idle millions of acres of farmland. Under CRP, farmers are paid to not grow crops, but to cultivate ground cover such as grass or trees on retired acres. A large share of land idled under the CRP is owned by retired farmers, thus one does not even have to be a working farmer to get these subsidies. In Idaho, Shoshone Bannock Tribe was the 2nd largest recipient of farm subsidies in 2009. Shoshone Bannock Tribe received $510,364 in total payments, $503,629 was in Conservation Subsidies. In 2009 Shoshone Bannock Tribe received over half a million dollars to do absolutely nothing!
REASON TO REPEAL
Farm subsidies are a clear example of redistribution of wealth. In this case it’s distributing wealth from less income to more income. The average farmer income is higher than the average American’s income. Ten percent of all farmers collected 74 percent of all subsidies. Top 10% based on size of producer received $29,675 average per year between 1995 and 2009 while the bottom 80% receive $579 average per year between 1995 and 2009. The largest recipients of these subsidies are the largest producers. The myth that these program are meant to help the small farm just doesn’t hold water.
Farm subsidies hurt the overall economy. In most industries, prices are set by the balance of supply and demand. Profits signal investment opportunities while downturn results in innovation and cost cutting. However, these market mechanisms are not found in a government controlled industry like agriculture. As a result, federal agricultural policies produce substantial “deadweight losses” and reduced U.S. incomes. What does result is overproduction, overuse of marginal farmland, and land price inflation.
Like all government subsidies programs, farm subsidies are prone to waste and scandal. Farm programs are subject to bureaucratic inefficiencies, recipient fraud, and congressional pork-barrel politics. The Government Accountability Office (GAO)found that as much as half a billion dollars in farm subsidies are paid improperly or fraudulently each year. Farmers create complex legal structures to get around legal subsidy limits. Another reason why large producers receive a disproportionately high amount of subsidies is because they have the recourses to get through the legal hoops that the small producer doesn’t have.
Farm subsidies damage U.S. trade relations. U.S. and European farm subsidies and agricultural import barriers are a serious hurdle to making progress in global trade agreements. Free trade helps global economic stability and security. "If goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will." The World Trade Organization (WTO) estimates that even a one-third drop in all tariffs around the world would boost global output by $686 billion, including $164 billion for the United States.
Farming would see great success without subsidies. It is true that agriculture would change with the repealing of farm subsidies. Different crops would be planted, land usage would change, and some farms would go bankrupt. However a stronger and more innovative industry would likely emerge having greater resilience to shocks and downturns. It’s important to remember that commodities that are covered by subsidies only account for about 36% of all production. Most farm production isn’t even currently eligible for subsidies and they still strive within a free market.
Agriculture has changed a lot since the days farm subsidies were established. USDA figures show that only 38 percent of farm households consider farming their primary occupation. So the majority of farm households earn the bulk of their income from non-farm sources which creates financial stability. An interesting example of farmers prospering without subsidies is in New Zealand. That nation ended its farm subsidies in 1984, which was a bold stroke because the country is four times more dependent on farming than is the United States. The changes were initially met with fierce resistance, but New Zealand farm productivity, profitability, and output have soared since the reforms. New Zealand’s farmers have cut costs, diversified their land use, sought off-farm income, and developed niche markets such as kiwifruit.
In my opinion it has become obvious that it is time to largely cut government programs to help fix our problems in this country and I think agriculture subsidies and trade barriers are a clear place to start.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Priority Issues in Agriculture
My friends, it is winter time on the Palouse! My greenhouse is full of plants and I have two disease trials and one seed treatment trial now. With this winter and slow work I have time to get even more active in planning and setting the scene for 2011.
These holidays are not all calm for agriculture. We have more to defend than ever and more consumers to educate, with all sorts of resources and avenues to utilize. I want to share with you the key issues that I will be putting my extra time into, aside from full-time research in the greenpea industry and full-time college. These are ranked in their priority.
Key Organizations:
-American/Idaho Farm Bureau and the Young Farmers and Ranchers Committee
-Idaho Grain Producers
-Idaho Eastern Oregon Seed Association
-Inland Northwest Partners
-Idaho Cattleman's Association
-National Cattleman's Beed Association
-National Pork Producers Association
-National FFA Organization
-Agchat Foundation
-National Farmers Union
-Idaho State Legislature
-U.S. Congress
-University of Idaho-Moscow
-Washington State University-Pullman
-Idaho/Latah County Republicans
Key Issues
1. Consumer/Producer Education
-To include Farm Bureau Events
-Consumer Workshops
-Political Leader Education
-Ag In The Classroom
-Ag In The Newsroom
-Squared Leadership
2. Agri Business/Small Business Growth and Promotion
-Young Farmers and Ranchers
-Inland Northwest Young Producers Seminar
-Education of Ownership on Resources
3. Inland-Northwest Agriculture Development
4. Proposed GIPSA Rule Change
-Education of local consumers on effects of change
-Commenting on proposal
-Working with Elected Officials to stand against anti-ag policy
5. EPA Regulation on Farm Chemicals
-To include undue regulation
-To include approval of Roundup Ready Technology
-Fight Against Nozzel Regulation
5. Giant Palouse Earthworm/Grey Wolf/ESA
-Fight Enlistment of Non-Researched Species
-Removal of Grey Wolf
-Support for States Rights in control of ESA programs
6. Farm Program Development/Improvement
-To include a call for restructure of the CRP
-Fair assesment of the SURE Program
-Due process in disaster relief
-Farm Subsidy program evaluation/restructure
The most important thing for me is that the public is educated on the truth of agriculture. We see too many people beating producers to the punch and their false statements put a big dent in Agriculture. It will take people from all parts of the country to win this fight.
Stay connected with me and we will work together for a better agriculture.
These holidays are not all calm for agriculture. We have more to defend than ever and more consumers to educate, with all sorts of resources and avenues to utilize. I want to share with you the key issues that I will be putting my extra time into, aside from full-time research in the greenpea industry and full-time college. These are ranked in their priority.
Key Organizations:
-American/Idaho Farm Bureau and the Young Farmers and Ranchers Committee
-Idaho Grain Producers
-Idaho Eastern Oregon Seed Association
-Inland Northwest Partners
-Idaho Cattleman's Association
-National Cattleman's Beed Association
-National Pork Producers Association
-National FFA Organization
-Agchat Foundation
-National Farmers Union
-Idaho State Legislature
-U.S. Congress
-University of Idaho-Moscow
-Washington State University-Pullman
-Idaho/Latah County Republicans
Key Issues
1. Consumer/Producer Education
-To include Farm Bureau Events
-Consumer Workshops
-Political Leader Education
-Ag In The Classroom
-Ag In The Newsroom
-Squared Leadership
2. Agri Business/Small Business Growth and Promotion
-Young Farmers and Ranchers
-Inland Northwest Young Producers Seminar
-Education of Ownership on Resources
3. Inland-Northwest Agriculture Development
4. Proposed GIPSA Rule Change
-Education of local consumers on effects of change
-Commenting on proposal
-Working with Elected Officials to stand against anti-ag policy
5. EPA Regulation on Farm Chemicals
-To include undue regulation
-To include approval of Roundup Ready Technology
-Fight Against Nozzel Regulation
5. Giant Palouse Earthworm/Grey Wolf/ESA
-Fight Enlistment of Non-Researched Species
-Removal of Grey Wolf
-Support for States Rights in control of ESA programs
6. Farm Program Development/Improvement
-To include a call for restructure of the CRP
-Fair assesment of the SURE Program
-Due process in disaster relief
-Farm Subsidy program evaluation/restructure
The most important thing for me is that the public is educated on the truth of agriculture. We see too many people beating producers to the punch and their false statements put a big dent in Agriculture. It will take people from all parts of the country to win this fight.
Stay connected with me and we will work together for a better agriculture.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Election Day
Election day is upon us. Take the time to get out there and vote, because more than ever, your vote counts. Here are some tips for those who are interested:
1: Take the time. Getting out there is an important thing, but don't cut it so short that if you get caught up in line that you get frustrated.
2: Proof. Some of you may have questions about residency. If you rent in the county, take your lease, power bill, or phone records with you. Something with your address on it that places you in the state and at the place of residence for more than 30 days.
3: DL. It is now a law in the State of Idaho that you provide a state issued form of identification, so don't get caught without it. Bring your ID in ID.
4: Don't let intimidation push you from making your move. It has been reported all over the country, people don't want you to get your vote in. If you see someone trying to get you discouraged about voting simply take a picture with your cell and notify the authorities.
5: Vote with your conscience at play. If you have a certain set of principles, stick with it. Vote for those candidates that you feel will make those decisions.
As a side note: Students that are from out-of-state, BE AWARE. If you are here at the UI on scholarship and don't want to loose that scholarship, do not vote in Idaho. Once you vote in Idaho you are considered an Idaho Resident and will no longer be eligible for your out of state scholarships or the WUE. This means you have to pay out-of-state tuition for the next 12 months because you have to have an Idaho ID for 12 months in order to get in-state tuition. It is a big goof on your part if you do so.
Good luck tomorrow and I hope my team wins!
MHF
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Elections for Idaho Agriculture
With a week left until the mid-term elections only five days away, I felt like it was time to put in the plug for agriculture in this vital election. As you all may be aware, this is a very critical election and every ballot cast is as important as ever. If you ever thought about how this election will affect the farming community, you are among many. I want to give you a quick shake down of the elections starting with state candidates and ending with Latah County and District 6 races.
Something to keep in mind as you read through this is that no situation can be predicted fully in any election, so these are strictly my opinions. Farming is a tough game, the future soley depends on what happens today and corrections to mishaps in the industry take time to correct. With this in mind, it is critical who you mark on the ballot. This is how I will vote and why.
Governor: I start off with the Governor race, as it is the highest ranking office we will vote this cycle. Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter has done a great job balancing the Idaho state budget, often times at the cost of his popularity. Because of that, and because of his down-home experience, I believe he will provide solid leadership and will stand his ground. Has Butch done this his whole political career? No, but the guy has somehow remembered why he ran in the beginning and has straightened his attitude and record up. The prime example I will leave for you is the latest news in the Grey Wolf re-enlistment under the Endangered Species Act. In late August a judge in Missoula, Monatana overturned a previous ruling to release wolves from the ESA, citing mismanagement in Wyoming. This will be devistating to not only ranches, but to wildlife as well. Governor Otter wrote a letter to the Secretary of Interior telling him that Idaho and Montana had efficient plans on wolf management and had all the bases covered. He also told him that if the wolf decision was not overturned the management and funding for wolf protection would not be Idaho's responsibility. After no response and a lack of effort on the federal level, Butch pulled Idaho off of the wolf case and ordered Idaho producers to protect their livestock and Idaho sportsmen/women to protect themselves. He also stands against the Giant Palouse Earthworm Petition and actively participates in Ag Trade Missions across the world. This is what Idaho and America needs, therefore, I will be sending a good leader to Boise.
Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, State Controller: Brad Little, Ben Ysursa , Lawrence Wasden , and Donna Jones, Ron Crane will all make great candidates and uphold the platform that we as conservatives will need in this fight. I have never had a problem with any of them and I hope you learn more about them as you look at their websites.
State Superintendent: Tom Luna has a super-charged campaign and wants to take public instruction down the conservative path. I had the opportunity to meet him several times and I love his style. In Moscow a few weeks ago he gave a strong presentation of his plans to allow students and parents to have control over their education and give credit to those who excell. He supports performance based salaries which is a huge plus in my book. When I asked him about Ag education, his plan seemed weak. I know times are changing and 12 to 30 miles doesn't seem too far anymore, but if you promote consolidation as your Ag Ed policy, you may loose some votes. I hope to work with him a little more on Ag Ed and providing conservative opportunities to students.
United States Senator D1: Mike Crapo will make a great Senator for another term. Mike is a Mormon out of southern Idaho and was a lawyer most of his life. He has supported agriculture almost every step of the way and received the Friend of Farm Bureau Award from the American Farm Bureau Organization. This means that he voted no on Obamacare, no on the Energy Bill, and voted no on the Death Tax. I am proud to have a good relationship with this guy and I know that he will continue to support agriculture in the future. Look for great things from him.
United States Representative D1: Raul Labrador is the odd ball out on my list. His campaign slogan is "Proven Conservative Leadership" which is great. Raul is a stem from the infamous "Tea Party" movement which is something I have tried to distance myself from because I think most of them are a little too much for me. Raul wants to cut government down a considerable amount, which is something I have wanted for a long time. I simply think that there are too many chiefs and not nearly enough indians in this country (NO offense intended. I foresee some issues arising when it comes to farm subsidies and the CRP program, which very well could mean more farms up for sale and land values crashing. I have seen a positive light in Raul though, when it came to a conversation with campaign headquarters about the proposed GIPSA rule change, they were all ears and wanted to side well with the livestock producers and meat packing companies. In my opinion, I think he has a little work to do and from an ag stand point it will be tough for Raul to beat Congressman Walt Minnick who has an outstanding history of supporting agriculture.
Idaho State Senate D6: Gresham Bouma took Idaho by surprise and made the 18 year incumbent madder than a wet hen. This race has taken MANY interesting turns. Gresham didn't impress me when he came to speak to the Latah County Farm Bureau Board meeting back in March. I thought he was too weak to beat Schroeder, but came to like him as I saw his progression. I listened to him speak at the tax day rally at friendship square in Moscow and fell in love with the passion he had for his cause. This is something that I think we need. Gresham, a home builder by trade, has taken a front seat approach to listening to constituents and has been at almost every meeting I can think of. I am pleased with his activity and involvement in organizations within this district and don't think he will let us down after the election. What Gresham may lack in issue knowledge, he gains in trusting the people to educate him. I have seen him ponder and grow and I think his life experiences and his hard work will benefit agriculture like we did not see in Gary Schroeder. As a side note, Gresham is against farm subsidies by principles and I know he feels they cripple the free market system in farming, but I think he has enough in him to listen to producers and has the head on his shoulders to stand with the farmers, who are the real losers in food prices.
Idaho State Representative D6 Seat A: Tom Trail was a WSU professor with a history of voting both sides of the sandwich. He is very Pro-Ag, including his vote on funding all ag programs that benefit Palouse farmers directly. He once recieved the Cesar Chavez Human Rights Award.
Idaho State Representative D6 Seat B: Issac "Ike" Young is unconventional. I think he is the only candidate in the whole race that has no website or facebook page. Ike drives a cement truck for Atlas Cement, something that I have never heard of in politics. At first I thought Issac was nuts and that he was going to make the conservative movement look terrible if he got to Boise. I was at one point going to vote for his opponent, Shirly Ringo. Yes, I said it and I am not proud. But you are now officially informed, "I Like Ike." I have been watching Ike with a very distrustful eye this entire election, waiting for that "aha" moment where I could truly justify voting for a Democrat. Ike did the opposite. Through these last months we have seen almost anger turn into understanding, something we are still yet to see from President Obama. Ike wants to straighten government and hold people accountable; I agree with him 100%. When I asked Ike on education the first time he wanted to cut it all, but through time he has gained a solid understanding of where education needs to go and his plan looks very similar to Tom Luna's. I am very proud of Ike and I am making the dedication to keep on his side through this and support him when he gets to Boise. Idaho needs guys like Young and Otter to stand when it may not be popular.
Latah County Commissioner District 2: Bill Goesling works hard and is very dedicated. His whole campaign has been a focus on business growth in the county. Look at my blog from September for more on Bill.
Latah County Commissioner District 3: Dave McGraw is the man. I have become a great friend with Dave after 20 hours in the cab of his pickup. I believe with all my heart that Dave has what it takes and I hope you trust me on this one. Dave worked at St. John Hardware when it was Helbling Bros. and has done great things for the city of Troy. I love Dave like a brother and I pray for him and his wife a lot. Dave is pro business and has more experience, hands down, over Robin. Dave's main focus is making Latah County business friendly, and as a future Latah County farmer, I love that idea.
Latah County Assessor: Jerry Coleman is the vote and has lots of experience. With the future in land values and the need for business growth in the county, we will need someone who has actually done the assessing job. I have come to know Jerry and I think that this guy will be very fair in his work. I talked with him last night and he said that he has gotten grief over making public the unfair dealings of the current County Assessor, and I have to say, at least Jerry was honest enough to point out that the county assessor was giving himself a break. Dishonesty never has an excuse and it doesn't settle with me well. Grandma taught me better than to let something like that slide.
County Clerk, County Treasure: Susan R. Peterson and Lois Reed. Both outstanding ladies and uncontested. I would say that there is something to be said there.
Good luck to all who are running, you have my support. I do want to say though, just because you are not on my list, doesn't mean I don't like you. I have had the opportunity to meet and become friends with many of the candidates in all parties and I am pleased with those that are running.
My final words, Gary Schroeder needs to be careful which outhouse he lays his piles, he is farting in the wrong cages right now.
(Photo Credit: Mike Friddle/BlackBerry)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
