It All Depends on How You Hold Your Tongue

I was reminded of this profound truth by Erin's photos here.

France Is a Different Country (L'Ancien Regime Still Mourned by Some)

We got rid of our Loyalists to Canada, but not so in France--an excerpt from Dirk Beauregard's post on religion:

In very traditional, and unflinching, intégriste, or fundamentalist Catholic circles, there is still a lot of nostalgia for the Ancien Régime. The 1789 Revolution is viewed very much as a cataclysm and a rupture with God and the natural order. However, the vast majority of Catholics are quite happy living within the republican scheme of things.

A Good Paragraph

John Phipps says:

What I have learned as far back as the Apple/PC beginnings is waiting for a clear winner probably isn't the best choice. If nothing else, taking the plunge generates significant practical knowledge of an emergent technology that could be a significant advantage. This happened for early personal computer users regardless of which platform they eventually ended up with.

As long as you've got some margin for error (money-wise, etc.), this works for me. Learning is always good (except when it intrudes on an old guy's routine).

In Defense of Checking With IRS

Republican members of House Ag have written to USDA objecting to the requirement that producers sign IRS forms granting FSA access to their data (see this post). From the letter:

We did offer a choice to producers. Congress allowed for a verification of income statement, prepared by a certified public accountant or another third party acceptable to you, to be submitted every three years that confirms the producer’s adjusted gross income which makes he or she eligible to receive payment.

By forcing every producer to give USDA the power to verify with the IRS information submitted by the farmer or rancher takes away this choice, unnecessarily invades privacy and contravenes the intent of Congress. We, of course, do not want ineligible producers receiving payments, but Congress provided an explicit mechanism to address the problem without involving the IRS

So why would FSA bureaucrats do differently? Basically because it's easier, more accurate, less expensive and less revealing of private data. Other than that, the Republicans' suggestion would create jobs, increasing the employment of CPA's, so no doubt FSA should scrap its plan and go with the Republican one.

Shall I explain? (Note, I don't really know what FSA is planning, but I know the sort of proposal I would take to USDA management and IRS, if I were still there.)

Very simply put:

• FSA would create a file of the tax ID's of the producers subject to the AGI limit.
• FSA would give the file to IRS.
  
• IRS would, from their data, create a file of tax ID's whose tax return shows an AGI amounts over $500,000 (or whatever is the appropriate figure). Note the actual amount wouldn't be on the file, just the fact the AGI level was exceeded.
  
• IRS would match the data on the two files, and create a return file showing the tax ID's of the matches.
• FSA would take the return file and sit down with the producers to resolve the discrepancy between their statement that their AGI was below the limit and IRS indication it was above.

That solution appeals to a DC bureaucrat--it treats everyone the same, all the work of handling people who are complying with the rules (i.e. 99 percent) is done by computers, and you only have to disturb people when there's a good possibility of a problem of fraud.

I'm not sure what appeals to a county office bureaucrat--is it easier to explain to a producer why he or she needs to sign the IRS form or why they need to get a CPA? My guess is the latter.

Far be it from me to suggest that any farmer would ever have a CPA lie, but as a taxpayer I'd sooner trust IRS's report.

It would be an interesting question to see if Pell Grants are checked with IRS. See this for required documents

Obesity and Fast Food

The Times has an article on a study which found proximity to fast food outlets was strongly correlated with obesity. It sounds impressive.

New Farmers in Nebraska

U of Nebraska has a piece on ag students possibly returning to the farm and the hurdles they face. It's interesting, but would be discouraging for the alternative ag people--the only farming option discussed is the "factory farm", or "industrial ag"--no consideration of mini-farms growing fruits and veggies.

House Ag and Implementing Conservation Programs

House Ag had a hearing with NRCS and FSA, plus the OIG and GAO types, on problems with handling conservation program payments, including this GAO report. I briefly yield to my FSA partisanship and note the following excerpts from the IG's prepared testimony.

These problems occurred because NRCS lacked federal financial accounting expertise. Until 2004, NRCS had relied on FSA employees to help account for its transactions, and had not cultivated a staff of accounting professionals. Part of this problem also has to do with how NRCS understands its mission within USDA. Many NRCS officials perceive their primary role as providing technical and scientific assistance to producers. Training employees to correctly account for its activities was not the agency’s first priority.

We found possible noncompliance issues on approximately 40 percent of the[WRP] easement sites we inspected.

I'm wondering about the background of shifting payments from FSA to NRCS--presumably the NRCS interest groups had bigger clout on Capitol Hill than the FSA interest groups.

This area is of more than passing interest to me, given my guess that NRCS will be given responsibility for Vilsack's carbon offsets (remember, you heard it here first).

Best Sentence Today, Mar 25

"I have a firm rule - I eat the mean people." (From Walt Jeffries at Sugar Mountain Farm, on his culling policy.)

Little Known Fact About Farming and Taxes

Trying to track down a cryptic bit on payment limitation and ACRE, I ran across this from a footnote in the Congressional Research Service report on the 2008 farm bill:

Farms overwhelmingly report losses for tax purposes (because of cash accounting, depreciation, and other practices), even though USDA farm income numbers are positive. For example, in 2004, two-thirds of all Schedule F tax returns showed a loss, resulting in a sector-wide net farm loss of $13 billion for all Schedule F returns. By comparison, USDA farm income data showed an $80 billion profit. Even for “large” farms with sales over $250,000, about one-third report a loss for tax
purposes.

And Was Senator Lincoln in Attendance?

Or maybe Sen. Chambliss (in my mind, no doubt unfairly, I see Lincoln and Chambliss as the leading protectors of the current payment limitation rules)? So it may taken Lincoln only a nano-second to call Vilsack and point out Obama needs her vote on the 2010 budget so what the &***% does he mean by this response to a Sustainable Ag meeting:

"Vilsack said that he is aware of the need for a strong new rule on what it means to be “actively engaged in agriculture” for the purpose of commodity payments."