Republican Study Committee Budget

Following are excerpts from the RSC budget (not Rep. Ryan's):

SUPPORT MARKET-BASED PROGRAMS BY ELIMINATING THE DIRECT PAYMENT (DP) PROGRAM.
The DP program provides cash subsidies to commodity producers, capped at $40,000 annually. The payments are based on a historical measure of a farm’s production acreage, and they do not vary based on actual production or commodity prices. Direct payments were originally established in 1996 as a transitional program. However, the subsidies have not been reduced over time.

The Washington Post estimated that between 2000 and 2006, the federal government made $1.3 billion in direct payments to people who do not even farm. Recently, the Iowa Farm Bureau proposed eliminating the DP program. While the President has called for lowering the cap in FY 2012, this plan would eliminate the Direct Payment program entirely. The savings would amount to $4 billion in FY 2012 and $50 billion over ten years. Although this non-market based program would be terminated, growers could still receive support payments from other support programs such as the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) and Marketing Loan Assistance programs.

PROHIBIT NEW ENROLLMENTS IN THE CONSERVATION STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM.
The Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) provides annual payments to producers for five years in exchange for undertaking various land improvements. However, payments under the program can be made to producers who have already undertaken conservation measures.

Beginning in FY 2012, new enrollees would be prohibited from entering into the program. This policy would result in FY 2012 savings of $35 million and approximately $10.5 billion in savings over ten years. The CBO stated that the “criteria used to determine improvements in existing conservation practices are not readily apparent, and the absence of objective measurements could result in higher payments than necessary.” The RSC’s proposed option is based on the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform’s recommendation to put limits on this program.

PROHIBIT GENERAL ENROLLMENTS IN THE CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM (CRP). The CRP was established by the 1985 Farm Bill. Its purpose is to remove land from agricultural production, and it is the federal government’s largest private land retirement program. Under the CRP, producers are paid to plant grass or trees on retired acres. Currently, approximately 31 million acres of land are enrolled in the program. The program is economically destructive and takes away farm land that could be used for things such as corn and biomass production. Beginning in FY 2012, new general enrollments in CRP would be prohibited, resulting in approximately $9 billion in savings over ten years.

REDUCE THE PREMIUM SUBSIDY IN THE CROP INSURANCE PROGRAM.
Farmers use the Federal Crop Insurance Program to protect their crops from perils by purchasing policies that are sold and serviced by private vendors. The federal government subsidizes about 60 percent of the premiums paid for this program. Beginning in FY 2012, the federal government’s subsidy would be reduced to 50 percent of the crop insurance premium. This would result in a savings of $400 million for FY 2012 and $11.8 billion over ten years. Reductions of this magnitude in the subsidy rate likely would not substantially affect the level of program participation.

ELIMINATE THE FOREIGN MARKET DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (FMDP).
The FMDP is used by agricultural trade associations and commodity groups to help promote exports and provide nutritional and technical assistance to other countries. This program would be terminated beginning in FY 2012, resulting in FY 2012 savings of $35 million and savings of $350 million over ten years. This initiative is something that the private sector would otherwise be spending money on anyway. The private sector should be responsible for promoting its own products, as it receives the profits from the sales of these products.

ELIMINATE THE MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM (MAP).
The MAP is intended to promote overseas marketing of U.S. agricultural products. MAP funds consumer promotions, market research, trade shows, advertising campaigns, and other programs designed to subsidize the sale of brand-name products in foreign markets by private cooperatives, trade associations, and businesses. Taxpayers should not be forced to pick up the tab for this kind of corporate welfare. The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform even targeted this program as one in need of change. This program would be terminated in FY 2012, resulting in an annual savings of $200 million and $2 billion in savings over ten years. According to the CBO, some analysts believe MAP “does not warrant additional funding because the extent to which it has developed markets or replaced private expenditures with public funds is not known.”

ELIMINATE WOOL AND MOHAIR SUBSIDIES.
The federal government first enacted price support for wool and mohair in 1947, and the National Wool Act of 1954 established direct payments for wool and mohair producers for the purpose of encouraging production of wool as an essential and strategic commodity. This support was last re-authorized in 2008 despite a complete lack of a compelling need for government support of mohair. Beginning in FY 2012, wool and mohair subsidies would be eliminated, saving taxpayers $4 million in FY 2012 and $40 million over ten years. This budget would return control over supply, demand, and price of wool and mohair to the free market.

Pot-Filled Fantasies of Farming

Treehugger has a post on "sunless farming" (not vertical):

The idea is to figure out how to grow crops in these regulated indoor places so that anyone can grow crops anywhere -- from buildings placed next to supermarkets and malls, to high-rises with a spare floor to rent, and so on. The researchers believe that any space of 1,075 square feet set up with the right equipment and layers of plants could provide a fresh diet of produce to 140,000 people.

Amazingly, some people actually take this seriously.  Maybe they're smoking pot, which by the way is the major crop which is already being grown under lights.  This Freakonomics post links to research on the energy demands and carbon dioxide impact of our current marijuana industry. Two paragraphs:

California, the mecca of medical marijuana, is by far the worst offender. There, the indoor pot industry is responsible for about 3 percent of the entire state’s electricity use, or about 8 percent of all household use.

Some of the biggest growing facilities have a carbon footprint on par with many industrial medical and technology operations. According to Mills, a typical indoor marijuana growing facility has “lighting as intense as that found in an operating room (500-times more than needed for reading), 6-times the air-change rate of a bio-tech laboratory and 60-times that of a home, and the electric power intensity of a data center.”

Cutting the Deficit, Cutting Safety

Part of the fallout from 2011 budget fight is described in this article in the Washington Times:

The Justice Department is freezing efforts to create a single radio network that allows its various agencies to talk to each other — a key recommendation of the Sept. 11 panel.

 I remember blogging on the need for such a network way back near the beginning of this blog.

Stock Up on Peanut Butter Now

That's based on the word passed on by Farm Policy, which reports Texas peanut growers are switching their acreage to cotton, based on the high prices for that crop.  As a result, we might have to import peanuts from Argentina.

My Taxes Are Too Low (and So Are the Obamas)

I've noted my procrastination, so you'd expect I would file my tax returns today.  I have to say my taxes are too low, we should be paying more.  And so should the Obamas, even though they seem to be paying about 25 percent.  And worst of all IRS doesn't have enough people.

Paarlberg on Foodie and Libertarian Myths

Via Farm Policy, Robert Paarlberg has an article at Good Food.  A couple excerpts here:

Our federal farm programs are designed to supplement the income of farmers, not subsidize the production of food. Most federal farm support programs either give cash to farmers whether they grow more crops or not, or boost farm income by raising crop prices through import restrictions, market controls, or temporary land set-asides, all of which make food artificially expensive, not artificially cheap.

One USDA study in 2008 found that over the previous 25 years the price of un-subsidized fruits and vegetables—controlling for season and quality—had fallen at almost exactly the same rate as the price of chocolate chip cookies, cola, ice cream, and potato chips. So that other popular claim—Americans are obese because unsubsidized healthy foods have become more expensive—is also bogus. 

This Is Surprising: Pun in Stone 35000 Years Old

From a NYTimes book review:

In the caves of our Paleolithic ancestors, 35,000-year-old figurines have been found, each appearing to be a naked woman when viewed from one angle and an erect penis when viewed from another.

Political Appointees Versus Careerists

The chief flack at USDA is leaving to join Rahm Emanuel in Chicago.  She's been charged with discrimination according to this post.

At DHS there was tension between the careerists in charge of FOIA requests and the political appointees.

Without any knowledge of the particulars I'd suggest the following could be true:

• the political appointees are young.  Except at the highest levels, political staff appointees tend to be whippersnappers on the way up, looking to make their mark.  They've attached themselves to the bigwigs (i.e. Secretary and below), or rather they've successfully networked with the bigwigs. 
• the political appointees are inexperienced.  Likely they don't arrive with an extensive background in the rules of FOIA, or the agency or department.  Likely they don't arrive with a lot of experience managing people. 
• the political appointees are attuned to the expectations of the Secretary and the President.  That's their reference group; that's who they want to impress.
• the career employees are old.  The political appointees are dealing with the top of the career hierarchy, which usually means people who've risen within the ranks, meaning they're older.
• the career employees know the rules and the agency.
• the career employees have seen political appointees come and go, so they're likely to be skeptical of  them and their new ideas. By the same token, they're less impressed with the Secretary and the President than the appointees.
 

All in all, a formula for conflict.

Prohibit Contractors Who Are Delinquent on Taxes

Since I yesterday urged the firing of federal employees if they didn't have an agreement to pay back taxes, it's only fair I should today urge the blacklisting of any Federal contractor who hasn't paid their taxes. POGO has a summary of the problems

New USDA Website

USDA has redesigned their main website.  I had some criticisms in the comments, but my opinion is probably idiosyncratic.  [Updated:  here's the link to the comments.]