Obama and the Bureaucracy

I understand Sen. Obama disclaimed any ambition to be a bureaucrat. Here's one view of the problems the next President, who is the chief bureaucrat of the country, should work on.

Stupid People

Via From the Archives, this image. Golf courses use 8 percent of the water in Southern Nevada

Barriers to "Entry"

Economists talk about the barriers to "entering" a field: profession, enterprise, whatever. The higher the costs of entry, the fewer entities will be able to compete so prices will be higher and efficiencies lower. Aimee Wittemann of the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition has a piece on the barriers affecting organic farmers (though she doesn't call them that). She wants the farm bill to redress the imbalance between organic and regular farmers. In doing so, she's hurting the short-term interests of current organic farmers in hopes of promoting long term interests of consumers.

Farming Is More Rewarding Than Microsoft

Perhaps, according to this Financial Times piece on the future plans of Jeff Raikes, retiring Microsoft executive.

He started out with an Apple II in 1979 to help run the farm and ended up in Microsoft accumulating half a billion dollars. So he has enough money to buy some land, but not too much.

And Everything Is Different in California

From a big LA Times piece dissing the animal identification proposal of USDA, comes this tidbit:

"It's totally ridiculous," said Joaquin Contente, who oversees 1,700 Holsteins on his Hanford, Calif., dairy farm. Contente said existing regulations in California and other states meant his cows and their movements were well-documented.

"We already have a good paper trail. It will be more of a burden for the small-to-average producer," said Contente, who worries about the expense for an average-size farm like his. [emphasis added]

So Much for Decoupling

"Decoupling" in the agricultural context means breaking the linkage between what's in the farm program and what is planted. Under WTO rules benefits that aren't decoupled and therefore affect the crops being planted and produced are charged against a country's subsidy limits. But, from a piece on the Farm Bureau's position:

“‘I have talked to a lot of farmers and I can tell you they don’t really care whether something is a budget gimmick, or closing a loophole, or providing a tax credit,’ Stallman said. ‘They don’t really care about all the back and forth from Democrats and Republicans on those issues. What our members care about is: Are we going to have a farm bill and when are we going to know what the rules are so we can plan our planting operation?’”

If the rules affect the planting, then decoupling isn't.

Environmental Quality IMprovement Program Takes a Hit

This piece in the NY Times Week in Review takes after EQIP for helping large livestock producers in dealing with manure.

The questions, then, remain: Why should taxpayers foot the bill for manure lagoons, particularly under the flag of environmental conservation? Why should taxpayers subsidize expansion of livestock farms? And if livestock farms have created environmental problems, shouldn’t the polluters have to pay for the mess that they created, rather than the taxpayers?

Just another example of the falling support for farm programs.

Across the Border

A reminder that the free market has not always been universally accepted--the Canadian minister of agriculture says:

"Attempts by the Wheat Board to invent an imitation marketplace fall far short of the expressed will of barley producers. Farmers have demanded marketing choice. No bureaucratic program can replace this. It is time for the CWB to stop ignoring this unavoidable fact.

It's also interesting that the Minister doesn't have power over the Canadian Wheat Board.

Someone's Changing the Figures

This NYTimes article uses a figure that's unusual: 40,000 pounds of bombs. It sounds a lot more impressive than 20 tons, which is a third of a load for a B-52. "Tons" is, I think, the standard for bomb measurement (i.e., "tonnage"). Was that the AF press release, trying to amp their contribution to the war, or the Times writer?

An Age-Old Tale of Graying Farmers

From the Gristmill, the first of 5 pieces on farm bill issues:

WHY PUBLIC POLICIES ARE NEEDED

• The average age of farmers and ranchers is increasing. USDA estimated that in 2004 about 4 percent of America's farmers were under 35 years of age, while nearly one-fourth were 65 years or older. The fastest growing cohort of farmers and ranchers are those 70 years or older, while the fastest declining is those 25 years old or younger.
• Over the next two decades an estimated 400 million acres of U.S. agricultural land will be passed on to heirs or sold. USDA estimates that currently over one-third of farmland is owned by landowners over the age of 65.

What the writer fails to realize, or at least mention, is that this is a continuing story. I remember doing a prototype system in Sherman County, KS in 1992--the CED had the ages of his farmers and the distribution was similar to this. I suspect back in Ontario County, NY (home of some ancestors) in 1840 the same story held. What happens is that those who are able to buy land live out their lives as farmers, the younger generation mostly leaves the farm, meaning the remaining farms grow bigger. The only time this changes is when the type of farming changes. For example, Lancaster county, PA used to be wheat country (back before the Revolution). It became mostly dairy and now I'd guess it's mostly tourist and truck, with some remaining dairy. Tourist farms are likely much smaller than a dairy (at least a dairy operated by non-Amish--the Mennonite tradition throws all my generalizations into a cocked hat).