Constitutional is not the same as wise, however. Even if this national cheese-peddling corporation doesn't waste government money, it wastes government authority. Dairy farmers are perfectly capable of buying their own advertising. And shoppers are perfectly capable of deciding whether they want more cheese or not. The federal government's only role should be to disseminate objective nutritional information free from conflicts of interest, real or apparent. Working to increase the demand for certain commodities is the epitome of big, stupid government. We'll be very interested to see whether the new Republican House has the courage to say so.I believe they're wrong because they're ignoring the "free-rider problem" here. The only way for farmers to coordinate and to be sure everyone pays their share of the bill for advertising is to have the government enforce the rules.
Blogging on bureaucracy, organizations, USDA, agriculture programs, American history, the food movement, and other interests. Often contrarian, usually optimistic, sometimes didactic, occasionally funny, rarely wrong, always a nitpicker.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Dairy, Cheese, and the Post
Saturday the Post's editorial board weighed in on Dairy Management and cheese. A paragraph:
Sunday, November 14, 2010
A Liberal Solves the Budget Deficit
The NY Times has an interactive page which permits you to try to solve the budget deficit by choosing among various options to reduce spending and increase revenues. Here's my solution. [Updated: here's another try at the solution.]As a good liberal I'm relying on cuts to military spending, returning taxes to Clinton levels, a carbon tax and some tax reforms, and relatively minor tweaks to Social Security and other programs (though I do chop farm programs--sorry FSA. :-)
As it comes out I'm roughly 60 percent taxes, 40 percent spending cuts. If it for real, I'd probably phase in the changes gradually.
[Note: When I tried to recreate my solution, thanks to my commentor for pointing out the failure, I probably made different decisions the second time through.]
As it comes out I'm roughly 60 percent taxes, 40 percent spending cuts. If it for real, I'd probably phase in the changes gradually.
[Note: When I tried to recreate my solution, thanks to my commentor for pointing out the failure, I probably made different decisions the second time through.]
Why Less Pickpocketing
Ann Althouse notes a report that the number of pickpockets is declining and those left are old. I wonder why? Is it because of better police enforcement in NYC, there's a breakdown in the transmission of criminal skills from old to young, perhaps reflecting a general crisis in education, or the fact people use less cash and more credit cards these days?
Saturday, November 13, 2010
A New Freedom to Farm? How To Do It
House Ag chair ( until Jan.) Collin Peterson raises the possibility of a new Freedom to Farm program in a quote from Farm Policy:
"He [Speaker to be Boehner] may be pushed and not have any choice because of his caucus to weigh in to try to do something like Freedom to Farm where they are going to phase out subsidies again.’”Okay, just suppose they truly want to phase out the direct payment subsidies, which in turn were supposed to compensate for the deficiency payments of the 1980's and early 90's. How should they do it?
- Graduate the total amounts. Freedom to Farm hardly graduated the amounts at all. Although the theory was that farmers were being weaned from subsidies, the "weaning" metaphor wasn't taken seriously. Anyone who's weaned a mammalian baby (calves in my case) knows you accustom the baby to the new food and cut down the old food. So, if you start at $5 billion, reduce it by $1 billion a year.
- Consider a ratchet. In other words, tie the phase out to farm income. If farm income goes up, payments go down. If farm income goes down, payments don't change from the previous year. That approach might soften the arguments it's no time to cut payments when farmers are in trouble because their income is down.
- Consider prorating reductions to make the net payments progressive. In year one, everyone gets 100 percent. In year two, the top 10 percent in payments gets reduced by 20 percent, the next 20 percent gets reduced by 15 percent, etc. etc.
Friday, November 12, 2010
On Long Historical Memories
Having restored the RSS feed for Dirk Beauregarde, some tidbits from his post on Armistice Day:
"In small towns and villages all over France, officials, dignitaries, will have been laid wreathes at the foot of the local war memorial. All very official. There is however no popular and collective rememberance as we have in the UK and that is symbolised by the wearing of poppies.
I like the poppy spirit, similar to the old War spirit where, everyone is doing his or her « bit ». We can all « chip in » and remember. Out here in France, the act of rememberance is official and institutionalised...."
[Updated: Maybe the Tea Party types will remember the Brits burned our capital? ]
I asked the question of my trainees a few days ago – a group of young French army lieutenants – fresh out of military collège, and come down to Bourges for a year to learn their craft – logistics – thèse are the guys that have to get the supplies to the front line.
« Can you work with the Brits » I ask
« Are French army practices compatible with those opf the British army ? »
General silence.
One young lieutenant tells me that the British « betrayed » the French at Dunkirk. Another enters into an anti British discourse based on the évents at Mers el Kebir, and a third talks of Waterloo. De Gaule would be happy at the anti British sentiment, but in today’s world, we have a long way to go before we can hope to work together.
Japanese Agriculture
An article in today's Post on Obama's trip to Japan mentioned the problems the prime minister faces, including this:
[Updated: According to the NY Times story, the proposed changes might cost 3.4 million jobs. The Post writer may have misinterpreted that as "farmers", not agriculture-related workers.]
But the sharpest acrimony came from the agricultural sector, the longtime granddaddy of Japanese politics, traditionally protected by high tariffs on imports such as rice and butter. With those tariffs obliterated, about 3.4 million farmers could lose their jobs, Japan's main agricultural group says.The figure seemed high, so I did a little googling and found this link which not only confirms the figure is too high (3.4 million may be the total number of farmers) but includes lots of details on farming: some are similar to the U.S., aging farmers, part time farmers reliant on outside jobs, heavily subsidized and political.; some are different, as in the average size of a farm is 4 acres, or the "plant factories" for lettuce.
[Updated: According to the NY Times story, the proposed changes might cost 3.4 million jobs. The Post writer may have misinterpreted that as "farmers", not agriculture-related workers.]
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Open Government and Its Limits
Got a chuckle from this use of the USDA open government site (someone decided to tweak USDA over the NYTimes dairy/cheese article by posting a tongue-in-cheek suggestion there). I commend USDA for showing the statistics on the site on the front page: they show it's not enough to "build it and they will come", particularly in as staid and settled an environment as USDA. TSA got traction with their blog simply because security is sexier than agriculture. I don't know what USDA and its agencies need to get more usage of their Gov. 2.0 stuff, but something is needed.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Washington Monthly and the Food Movement
The new Monthly has an article on ethanol and agriculture, incorporating many of the food movement's arguments: Here's a key paragraph:
Let us suppose, for example, that we paid growers like Picht to minimize deep plowing and to plant winter-cover crops so as to prevent erosion, filter pollutants, and build up the soil; to practice rotations of alfalfa, clover, vetch, peas, and other nitrogen-producing plants to minimize the need for chemical fertilizers and pesticides; to grow not just monocultures of corn and wheat and soybeans, but more fresh fruits and vegetables, which currently receive almost no subsidies.There's two problems with this proposal I'd like to point out:
- if you convert from a corn/soybeans rotation of some sort to include alfalfa...etc., over 10 years you're losing some percentage of your total production. That means you have to find more land to grow corn and soybeans on.
- the conversion also gives you a large quantity of alfalfa, ...etc. for which there currently is no use. Either you destroy the prices received by current alfalfa...etc. growers or you have to find a new use for the produce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)