What's your position on taking legislative action to help drought-stricken farmers in 2012?
Secretary Vilsack raised the question yesterday, suggesting Congress needed to act.
[Updated: via Obama Foodorama here's the briefing today at the White House--Vilsack is focusing on livestock producers. Back in the day we used to have the Livestock Feed Program for these sorts of situations but I guess it got cut.]
[Update II: Got around to doing what I should have done--check the FSA webpage. Apparently the old LFP got reauthorized under different titles and in different forms, but the authorities in the 2008 farm legislation expired Oct 2011. ]
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Question of the Day?
"I wonder how the Cuban Missile Crisis would have gone down if Kennedy
and Khrushchev had relied on Twitter instead of diplomatic cables?"
From a KevinDrum post noting Russia responded to the latest explosion in Syria via Twitter.
From a KevinDrum post noting Russia responded to the latest explosion in Syria via Twitter.
After This, the Deluge (of 2012 Disaster Ideas)
Chris Clayton quotes Sen. Stabenow pushing for House action on the farm bill, goes on to say:
"This [is] another reason to pass a farm bill now so that we can not only pass what we have in the farm bill now in terms of disaster assistance, but I think we need to be strengthening that for 2012," she said.See my post on the 20 percent of uninsured farmers. When you live a long time, you can be prescient.
Abundance: the Book
Reading Abundance, the Future is Better Than You Think, by Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler. It's an easy read, bringing into one place descriptions of a lot of the recent innovations which the authors believe will make the future better than the present.
Unfortunately, from my view, because they cover so much ground, everything from 3-D printing to DIY bioengineering to agriculture, they fall victim to some fads, including Despommiers and his vertical farming. In the appendices they include references for some of the ideas found in the text: for vertical farming it's a url from www.the-edison-lightbulb.com, a website containing ideas mostly from the young. The vertical farming bit is a Chicago fifth graders pitch for vertical farming. Pretty sad.
Having dissed that portion of the book, the bulk of it is a fast overview of all the reasons to be optimistic about everything. I strongly recommend it if you're depressed about the future, though I wouldn't bet on the accuracy of any specific ino. (Diamandis offered the "X Prize" for private spaceships.)
Unfortunately, from my view, because they cover so much ground, everything from 3-D printing to DIY bioengineering to agriculture, they fall victim to some fads, including Despommiers and his vertical farming. In the appendices they include references for some of the ideas found in the text: for vertical farming it's a url from www.the-edison-lightbulb.com, a website containing ideas mostly from the young. The vertical farming bit is a Chicago fifth graders pitch for vertical farming. Pretty sad.
Having dissed that portion of the book, the bulk of it is a fast overview of all the reasons to be optimistic about everything. I strongly recommend it if you're depressed about the future, though I wouldn't bet on the accuracy of any specific ino. (Diamandis offered the "X Prize" for private spaceships.)
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Price Loss Coverage III
Okay, finally read the farm bill as of July 9 (link) re: price loss coverage.(See previous post here.)
The provision:
The line numbers carry over in the copy process. There's two considerations in determining acreage accuracy: (1) potentially exceeding a limit, which is what my previous posts discussed; (2) the accuracy of payment acreage. Based on the above, I was wrong on (1)--there's no program limit to be violated. The only thing which looks like a limit is the farm base acreage, but if it's exceeded you just prorate out, so no big deal.
(2) however looks a bit different. If I under report my planted acreage, I get less payment, so no harm to the program. But if I over report, because my payments are calculated on planted acreage, there's overpayment, so FSA would need to handle that and deter such over reporting.
The provision would mean that reports of planted acreage are needed, which was a big battle back in Freedom to Farm days (bureaucrats always worry about workload).
The provision:
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
13 subparagraphs (B) through (D), the term ‘‘pay-
14 ment acres’’, with respect to the provision of
15 price loss coverage payments and revenue loss
16 coverage payments, means—
17 (i) 85 percent of total acres planted
18 for the year to each covered commodity on
19 a farm; and
20 (ii) 30 percent of approved total acres
21 prevented from being planted for the year to each covered commodity on a farm.
23 (B) MAXIMUM.—The total quantity of pay24
ment acres determined under subparagraph (A)
25 shall not exceed the farm base acres.
(C) REDUCTION.—If the sum of all pay
2 ment acres for a farm exceeds the limits estab
3 lished under subparagraph (B), the Secretary
4 shall reduce the payment acres applicable to
5 each crop proportionately.
6 (D) EXCLUSION.—The term ‘‘payment
7 acres’’ does not include any crop subsequently
8 planted during the same crop year on the same
9 land for which the first crop is eligible for pay10
ments under this subtitle, unless the crop was
crop was
11 approved for double cropping in the county, as
12 determined by the Secretary.
The line numbers carry over in the copy process. There's two considerations in determining acreage accuracy: (1) potentially exceeding a limit, which is what my previous posts discussed; (2) the accuracy of payment acreage. Based on the above, I was wrong on (1)--there's no program limit to be violated. The only thing which looks like a limit is the farm base acreage, but if it's exceeded you just prorate out, so no big deal.
(2) however looks a bit different. If I under report my planted acreage, I get less payment, so no harm to the program. But if I over report, because my payments are calculated on planted acreage, there's overpayment, so FSA would need to handle that and deter such over reporting.
The provision would mean that reports of planted acreage are needed, which was a big battle back in Freedom to Farm days (bureaucrats always worry about workload).
20 Percent of Farmers Have Their Rear Hanging Out
That's the message I take from this Illinois extension piece on crop insurance coverage in IL. It will be a big test: can politicians resist the pleas of the 20 percent uninsured for some federal help.
Billions and Billions and...
That's not Carl Sagan and stars (though he didn't really say that), it's Stu Ellis and crop insurance indemnities in this Farmgate piece.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Price Loss Coverage II
Still too lazy to read the text of the bill, but I got to thinking on my way to the garden. When I moved to the production adjustment side of ASCS, we had programs which limited the planted acreage to some figure. I'm not sure when that changed and how drastically it did.
Assume with me that since 1997 FSA hasn't been enforcing any acreage limitations--that may be true, may not be. Back in the day we had "measurement variance", which recognized the ways we determined acreages were not 100 percent accurate. If you ran the planimeter on your aerial photography, you might be off a tad. And we also had a "tolerance" figure, which recognized the farmer might be trying to limit her planted acreage to the exact figure, but wouldn't have the tools to be exact. Roughly speaking, if the farmer were supposed to plant only 100 acres of corn and he planted 103 acres, he was probably "within tolerance" and in full compliance with the program.
Finally we had "failure to fully comply". If you the farmer planted more than you were supposed to by more than the tolerance (say 106 acres), then the county committee had to determine whether you were acting in "good faith". If you were, the payment would be reduced. If you weren't, you were ineligible.
I recite these provisions first because they fascinated me as I tried to figure them out. My co-workers had all come from county offices so they had absorbed the provisions; I had to figure out their logic and how they related.
The provisions are interesting because, if there is no limit, as there hasn't been for a while (think I'm safe in saying that), they all go away. But if the Price Loss Coverage program, which seems to reinstate a limit, the situation may change.
Damn, I really need to read the bill's language.
[Updated: this may be interesting as history, but probably inapplicable to the proposed program. More to follow]
Assume with me that since 1997 FSA hasn't been enforcing any acreage limitations--that may be true, may not be. Back in the day we had "measurement variance", which recognized the ways we determined acreages were not 100 percent accurate. If you ran the planimeter on your aerial photography, you might be off a tad. And we also had a "tolerance" figure, which recognized the farmer might be trying to limit her planted acreage to the exact figure, but wouldn't have the tools to be exact. Roughly speaking, if the farmer were supposed to plant only 100 acres of corn and he planted 103 acres, he was probably "within tolerance" and in full compliance with the program.
Finally we had "failure to fully comply". If you the farmer planted more than you were supposed to by more than the tolerance (say 106 acres), then the county committee had to determine whether you were acting in "good faith". If you were, the payment would be reduced. If you weren't, you were ineligible.
I recite these provisions first because they fascinated me as I tried to figure them out. My co-workers had all come from county offices so they had absorbed the provisions; I had to figure out their logic and how they related.
The provisions are interesting because, if there is no limit, as there hasn't been for a while (think I'm safe in saying that), they all go away. But if the Price Loss Coverage program, which seems to reinstate a limit, the situation may change.
Damn, I really need to read the bill's language.
[Updated: this may be interesting as history, but probably inapplicable to the proposed program. More to follow]
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Price Loss Coverage
Been lazy so haven't looked up the actual provisions of this program as included in the House farm bill. Looks like a target price/counter cyclical type program, but based on planted (and prevented planted) acreage and with updated yields. If I get ambitious I'll do some research. It strikes me though that such a program will have problems with WTO rules--farm programs aren't supposed to encourage plantings.
Flashback Time
Ann Althouse links to a 1984 post-election piece by the Times. I was struck by these paragraphs:
As Mr. Reagan watched tallies of the vote on television, reporters asked him about the possibility of a summit meeting with the Soviet Union.I guess he did foreshadow the summit meeting at which he proposed doing away with such weapons entirely. Not something most conservatives like to remember.
''Yes,'' he said, ''it's time for us to get together and talk about a great many things and try to clear the air and suspicions between us so we can get down to the business of reducing, particularly, nuclear weapons.''
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)