Social Security and Foodies

I've one caution for those foodies who seek the simple life for its rewards. I surely agree one could be happy with a patch of land, a simple house, some animals, and some organics, at least as long as there's a good library nearby and broadband Internet connection.

But, and it's a big but, emulating the Amish or reverting to the diverse farms of 100 years ago is not simple. One of the hidden prerequisites of such a way of life is a large family, or at least a close-extended family. In other words--when there's no social security, when you become a geezer you become dependent on your children for your support. That's true for the Amish, it was true in 1910 farm life. Large families seem uncommon these days. To the extent single women have taken up farming, they are particularly vulnerable.

Yes, we have social security these days. (Social security coverage was extended to farmers in the mid 1950's.) But the size of your benefit is somewhat proportional to the amount of income you report and the amount of FICA tax you pay. If a quest for simplicity leads you to minimal income, or minimize your income on the 1040, or to skip paying the full 14-15 percent FICA tax for self-employed people, then you're vulnerable in your old age. (Unless, of course, you spent years toiling at the keyboard and establishing your 40 quarters. Then you will benefit from the structure of the system, getting higher benefits.)

Carbon Offsets from a Bureaucrat's Viewpoint

Okay, I was a bureaucrat so when there's talk of paying farmers for carbon offsets, I immediately think of how it might be handled by USDA/FSA. And, because I'm stuck in a rut, I'm likely to think of structures FSA has used in the past.

Back in the 1970's there was something which strikes me as a parallel. Under the program then, ASCS (FSA's predecessor) established a "conserving base" for each farm. This was the acreage in "conserving uses" (think of it as hay fields, pastures, grassland). Under the program,as a condition of receiving benefits farmers might be required to increase the acreage in conserving uses for the year (and not break out any new cropland). That seems to me to be a valid model for any future payments for carbon offsets. FSA/NRCS looks at the farming operation, documents what's being done already which impacts carbon sequestration. Call it a "carbon offset base". Then you could pay taxpayer dollars for changes to the operation which increases sequestration. But you'd also have to assess charges if and when a farmer changes her operation and reduces the carbon offset base. Or, assess the operation yearly and make yearly payments.

No doubt I'll have more to say as the subject continues to heat up.

Maybe Dairy Isn't the Only Real Farming

I've always thought dairying was the only real farming, up at 4 am for first milking, do second milking at 4 pm, 365 days a year, plus all the chores. Hens are almost as bad, but you could feed and collect eggs starting at 8 am and finishing at 4 pm. I know that's parochial, but humans are.

But this piece on doing flood irrigation gives me a sense of some of the work other farmers do.

Establishing Yields

I haven't kept track of what's needed for ACRE so I'm not sure about this, from Farm Policy:
DTN Ag Policy Editor Chris Clayton reported on this development yesterday and noted that,

“USDA has not posted a handbook on ACRE on its website or sent handbooks to county offices yet. Handbooks provide details on how USDA will interpret rules in certain instances. Nor has USDA released details on how it will establish production history for farmers who do not have five years of certified history from which to figure an Olympic average. Farmers who have learned about the program’s requirements have expressed concern about what FSA will accept as verifiable yield records.”

However, I'd note FSA does have a notice out on establishing yields for pulse crops. Skimming it, it looks to be very similar to the rules FSA used back in 1981 (?) to establish oat yields, when oats was added to the feed grain program, and the rules used in subsequent years every time a new/changed program required establishing yields for a crop.

FSA doesn't have a great record in putting handbooks out timely--back in the 1960's county employees were complaining bitterly about having to operate from a bunch of notices, rather than one handbook. So I'd advise Mr. Clayton to keep watch on the notices on the FSA website.

Heritage Agrees: Bush Site Is Poor

I've made some adverse comments in the past about the regulations.gov site the Bush administration touted as part of their e-government initiative. Heritage agrees it's not good:

Davis said the official Web site for submitting comments electronically, Regulations.gov, is hard to navigate. "If you go to Regulations.gov, that Web site is inherently confusing. It's a travesty, really," she said. "We have set up a system where [citizens] don't have to worry about remembering the docket number."

Of course, regardless of how good a process to submit comments you have, the $64,000 question is whether the comments have any value and whether they are used by the agency in any worthwhile manner.

FSA's Friend, Prof. Barnaby

Art Barnaby said:

“Barnaby also reminded producers to have patience with the FSA and USDA staff when it comes time for the sign-up. Barnaby reiterated that the ACRE and SURE programs are very complicated and that important details have been slow to be defined or left to the USDA Secretary to define.”

NRCS Ahead of FSA

NRCS has had its new head designated for 10 days now, but not FSA.

Life's Worse for the Poor

Here's an example of the title one (i.e., one who is white, middle class, and suburban) would never think of--a map showing locations of commuter-child accidents in downtown Detroit.

Prof. Pollan Again

Here's a YouTube interview with Prof. Pollan--where he pushes his views, with his usual mixture of skill and misinformation, helped along by his interviewer.

Boswell, Big Farmer, Corporate Farmer?

The LATimes has an article on the death of James G. Boswell, the California cotton farmer. I remember Boswell from the 1970's, when he was the bulletin board star of the people who attacked big subsidies. He owned 150,000 or 200,000 acres of San Joaquin valley land, growing cotton.

"But even during this period of growth and success for the enterprise, which included diversification into tomatoes and other crops, real estate development and farming in distant Australia, Boswell remained an intensely private man at the head of an intensely private family business."

So, if it's a "family business" it must be a "family farm", no? (His son takes over.) Was Wal-mart a family business, or Mars candy? Was IBM a family business when young Tom Watson replaced his father? Was "Bonanza" a family farm, or at least a family ranch? I don't think so, but it's an interesting continuum.