Budget issues continue to delay farm policy

There is a lot of uncertainty about farm policy in Washington, and current budget debates will determine whether there will be a farm bill and what it will look like, said Pat Westhoff, director of the University of Missouri Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute.

 

“The sequester that is scheduled to take effect on March 1 will cut many spending programs, and some people have proposed farm programs cuts as well as other programs to try and avoid some parts of the sequester and pay for delaying it,” said Westhoff at Ag Unlimited, an annual banquet held by the MU College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources.

 

“Other things that are coming up are appropriations bills for fiscal year 2013 that need to be resolved fairly soon, and the specter of the debt limit will have to be discussed,” he said.

 

The debt limit has been delayed until May, but fiscal year 2013 appropriations have a much shorter time, as the continuing resolution to keep the government running expires after March 27.

 

“Things are changing by the hour, but it appears that getting a five-year farm bill this year is far from a sure thing,” Westhoff said. “There is maybe a one-in-four chance of passing a bill that looks sort of like the bills that were discussed in Congress last year; a one-in-four chance of passing something that is much more severe in terms of budget cuts affecting agriculture; and maybe a 50-50 chance of simply extending current legislation yet another year.”

 

Westhoff also discussed commodities and suggested that even average weather conditions in 2013 could cause a sharp fall in crop prices. He reminded the audience that current prices are because of how bad last year’s crops were.

 

“If we were to plant the same number of acres of corn as we did in 2012 and we had a trend-line yield, that would give us more than 14 billion bushels of corn produced in 2013,” he said. “That would be enough to increase our feed use by 500 million bushels, ethanol by 500 million bushels, exports by 500 million bushels, and still increase the stocks of corn by more than a billion bushels. All of those things only happen if prices are much lower than they are today.”

 

While a more normal crop in 2013 would bring a drop in prices, Westhoff said another year of drought would take prices as high or higher than they are currently.

 

“I think the market situation will affect the farm policy debate,” Westhoff said. “Since I think it is likely that we won’t resolve the current debate for several more months, what happens with markets between now and then will probably affect the tenor of the debate.”

Opinion -- What’s Ahead in Congress This Year

By Lee H. Hamilton

 

Earlier this year, it seemed there might be some hope for Capitol Hill when Congress dealt easily with raising the debt ceiling. But don’t let that single episode fool you. As President Obama and House Republicans circle each other over the forthcoming budget cuts known as the “sequester,” it’s a reminder that Congress and the White House have a complicated legislative agenda ahead — and that none of the items on it will come easily.

 

We’ll get to the specifics in a moment, but two things need to be said up front. The first is that despite President Obama’s exhortations in his State of the Union speech, major policy changes will be difficult to make. The Democrats may have increased their margin in the Senate, but the Republicans still control the House. The ideological polarization and apparently incompatible views that marked dealings between the two bodies show no sign of abating. Significant policy initiatives are not impossible, but it’s safest to have subdued expectations.

 

Second, although rank-and-file members seem more willing than in the recent past to part with their caucuses on high-profile votes, power will continue to rest with the leadership. Over the year ahead, the dynamic to watch will involve the caucus leaders in both houses — ordinary members may have some impact on the margins, but they won’t be the center of the action.

 

The big issue, of course, will continue to be the budget and fiscal affairs. The major questions are: Can we get our fiscal house in order? Can we revive economic growth and make the investments we need in human and physical capital? And can we figure out a reasonable way to pay for the government we require — one that doesn’t need the 73,000 pages of rules and regulations that burden our current tax code?

 

However Congress and the White House proceed, it’s unlikely there will be any “grand bargain.” Instead, they are likely to make piecemeal progress on the core issues: increasing tax revenues and cutting spending on entitlements. Confrontations over these matters will make it harder to tackle other economic issues that need addressing, such as how to address the regulation of the biggest banks and how to finance the infrastructure that our economic growth desperately needs.

 

Congress will also turn to health care. As long as President Obama is in office, his signature health plan will not be repealed, but there will almost certainly be fights over its implementation and funding. The big issue — how to control health-care costs — will remain a centerpiece of the debate, but it is unclear how it will get addressed.

 

On the other hand, there is unambiguous movement on immigration reform. While Democrats have coalesced around a comprehensive approach to the issue — which would include ways of easing the stay of highly skilled workers, a guest-worker program, and a path to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country — Republicans have generally preferred tackling specific issues separately.

 

The two sides can find common ground, especially on high-skilled workers. Possible citizenship, on the other hand, will be much knottier to resolve. So while the gridlock may be easing, comprehensive reform of our broken immigration system is not assured.

 

You can also look for piece-by-piece initiatives on gun control. While the White House and some members of Congress are looking for wide-ranging legislation banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, others are focused on specific proposals that can gain bipartisan support. Some members with widely different views, for instance, are coalescing around an effort to expand requirements for background checks on gun sales.

 

Climate change, which gained national force last year with Hurricane Sandy, is less likely to see congressional action. Despite the certain threat of rising seas and storm surges, Congress seems unprepared to get serious about it. Instead, as he promised in the State of the Union, if Congress cannot act the President will take whatever steps he can by executive order, as he just did with cyber-security.

 

There are drawbacks to this approach, but it is a reminder that when Congress is able to act it remains a player, and when it can’t, it deals itself out of the policy picture.

 

Lee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.

Editorial -- President, Politicians Golfing as Sequester Looms

While a sequester that would create devastating cuts looms, there is no urgency in Washington whatsoever to address the problem. President Obama was on vacation golfing with oil industry lobbyists while Congress is currently on vacation as well. This means one of two things -- either the problem is not as serious as we are being led to believe, or our politicians have decided that they just don't care anymore.

The problem starts in the mirror. Poll after poll shows that around 75% of Americans think that Congress does not reflect their values. Yet here is the kicker -- they think that their Congressman is not part of the problem. Hence, for instance, Sam Graves gets reelected handily, getting 72% and 65% in the last two elections. And for all the visceral Obama hate out there, we reelected him as well. The point is that we should not reelect Congressman Graves or President Obama automatically; we should reelect them because they accurately reflect our interests.

The next problem is with the media. The corporate media acts like gatekeepers and decides who is important and who is not. Since Ross Perot threw a scare into the two-party establishment in the 1990's, certain gatekeepers have set up rules that stack the deck in favor of the two party system. We, on the other hand, feel that everyone has a right to be heard and plan our coverage accordingly. 

There is plenty of other blame to go around. The church is supposed to be salt and light to the world. Yet too many church organizations and leaders have become propaganda outlets for one party or the other instead of being willing to show independence. After all, God is supposed to be much more important than some political party or system. And organizations create objective sounding names and purport to be think tanks, yet all of their "conclusions" conveniently reflect the propaganda of the party that they are serving.

Ultimately, we have brought this mess on ourselves. Unless something happens between now and March 1st, we will start to pay the consequences.

Claire McCaskill Opinion: Ending Pork-Barrel Spending, Once and for all

by Senator Claire McCaskill

When I arrived in the Senate six years ago, I said no to earmarks, and began the fight to end them. There weren’t many of us who held that position then, but over the last several years, we’ve made a lot of progress. Slowly but surely, we’re changing the culture of Congress to one where members are not judged based on how much taxpayer money they spend, but rather on how much they can save.

Now is the time, while we’re focused on cutting wasteful spending, to make our temporary ban on earmarks a permanent one. Last week, I reintroduced legislation with my Republican colleague Pat Toomey that I know Missourians support: a bill that ends the earmarking practice once and for all.

When rallying support against earmarked spending, I’ve often found allies across party lines. In 2009, I teamed up with South Carolina Republican Senator Jim DeMint to fight for a moratorium on earmarks. That year I also worked with Senator John McCain to make it easier to remove earmarks from existing legislation. In the last Congress, Senator  Toomey and I proposed the Earmark Elimination Act—which we’re reintroducing this week—to permanently ban pet projects. I’ve also called on my own party's leaders to remove earmarks from Congressional legislation.

All along, my message to my colleagues was simple—when we’re talking about investments in America’s infrastructure, resources need to be awarded based on merit and competition, not based on who you are and who you know.

It’s clear that our message has broken through, as Congress placed a moratorium on Congressional earmarks in 2010. After years of hard work, the multi-billion dollar gravy train had finally stopped.

But predictably, some in Congress have had a hard time staying away from this process.

In 2011, we found that while many members of the U.S. House came to Congress promising fiscal discipline, they had inserted 115 earmarks into the National Defense Authorization Act, which would have cost taxpayers a staggering $854 million. After I rallied public pressure against this outrageous, wasteful hypocrisy, they retreated and stripped the earmarks out of the legislation.

More than once over the past five years I have been advised by colleagues and supporters to focus my attention elsewhere—to accept the ways of Washington and go along to get along. But during my time as Jackson County Prosecutor, Missouri State Auditor, and U.S. Senator, I’ve fought for change without backing down. I’ve fought to strengthen transparency, and raise the level of accountability in Washington.

Missourians didn’t send me to the Senate to tackle the easy stuff. They want their elected leaders to work day and night on the tough issues. I’ve never sought an earmark and I’ll stay devoted to permanently ending the earmarking practice until it is completely abolished.

Claire McCaskill, a former Missouri State Auditor, was reelected to a second term in the U.S. Senate in November.

Opinion -- Washington Needs to Lead. Now.

By Lee H. Hamilton

 

A few weeks ago, I had a conversation with a group of prominent business leaders that I’m still mulling over. We were talking about the intersection between business and government, and they were pretty unhappy. The chief target of their displeasure wasn’t any of the usual suspects, though.

 

Instead of lambasting taxes or regulations, they were most worried about uncertainty in Washington. Their business prospects, they argued, are being hurt by the inability of the political class — and in particular Congress and the White House — to come to terms on pretty much anything: from the year-end package of tax hikes and spending cuts known as the “fiscal cliff” to fixing the health care system to resolving our disagreements over immigration.

 

Now, uncertainty is baked into our political system. As soon as a law passes, hundreds of lobbyists head for Capitol Hill to try to change it, and scores more descend on executive-branch agencies to see if they can nudge the rules implementing the law as they’re written. Legislation that seems buried for good in Congress can abruptly rise from the dead and pass both houses, while laws that passed easily a few years ago suddenly find themselves imperiled.

 

“Nothing ever gets settled in this town,” George Shultz once told the House committee on which I sat when he was secretary of state. “It’s a seething debating society in which the debate never stops, in which people never give up.” Given the nature of our representative democracy, certainty and finality are simply not achievable.

 

Yet the businessmen I met with had an important and valid point. The range of really crucial issues on which Congress has been unable to find common ground is immense. It has yet to decide what to do about tax cuts that are about to lapse. It has a budget in place only until March and has not come to terms with the threat of deep cuts to spending that were part of the debt ceiling deal of 2011. It’s left issues like the future of estate taxes, a new agriculture bill, ensuring the security of our information infrastructure, and a rickety postal service on the table. And it hasn’t given a clue as to how it might want to address issues that are key to our economic competitiveness in coming decades: education, infrastructure, taxes, immigration and the like.

 

As we near the end of the year, anyone trying to plan ahead has to confront the fact that government policy for both the near and long terms is wildly unforeseeable. And no one expects the upcoming election to clarify much of anything.

 

This interminable gridlock in Washington produces a signal lack of leadership. Unable to formulate policy, let alone think strategically about the future, Congress punts. Which is terrible for the country. As The New York Times noted a few months ago, “A rising number of manufacturers are canceling new investments and putting off new hires because they fear paralysis in Washington will...undermine economic growth in the coming months. Executives at companies making everything from electrical components and power systems to automotive parts say the fiscal stalemate is prompting them to pull back now, rather than wait for a possible resolution to the deadlock on Capitol Hill.”

 

The problem is that politicians in Washington get so wrapped up in their own world that they seem unable to recognize the consequences of their inaction and last-minute antics. The bad habits they’ve developed in recent years — an inability to enact a budget or address taxes, the omnibus bills that concentrate power in the hands of just a few people, the lack of transparency and overabundance of partisanship — all have brought us to a point where people who depend on government to create a stable policy environment can no longer do so.

 

Yes, uncertainty may be built into our representative democracy, but so is the assumption that our elected leaders will take responsibility for bringing solidity to the policies that affect our society and economy. Politicians of both parties simply must step up their game, or they’ll create chaos.

 

Lee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.

Cut to the Chase -- The Farm Bill Big Deal

By Garrett Hawkins

As a little kid Saturday evenings in our house almost always found my parents in the living room watching a re-run of “Hee Haw.” Cartoons would have been my preference, but my father didn’t ask for my input. We had one television in our small house and only a few channels from which to choose.  So I sat on our couch and laughed right along with him. I can still hear Roy Clark crooning, “Where, oh where, are you tonight? Why did you leave me here all alone?” 

The country tune may be about love gone wrong, but the first two lines are easily changed to capture the feelings of farmers right now. “Where, oh where, is the farm bill tonight? Why did Congress leave me here all alone?” 

Most Americans are not aware the 2008 farm bill, the law containing many of our nation’s farm and food policies, expired September 30. They really have no reason to know. Farmers and ranchers are still harvesting crops, milking cows, feeding their animals and handling their daily duties. The food supply chain continues to process, market and deliver goods. Grocery store shelves and cases remain full. 

So what’s the big deal? Farmers and ranchers affected by the worst drought in decades will have to wait longer for livestock disaster assistance programs to be reinstated. In addition, no safety net is in place to help dairy farmers deal with record high feed costs. Programs used to promote American farm products overseas lapsed, as did programs dealing with energy, agricultural research and rural development. 

Farmers can be relieved that crop insurance is not affected, and commodity-specific programs remain in place for this year’s crop. Nutrition programs, the biggest chunk of the farm bill in terms of overall spending (nearly 80 percent), continue to be funded. 

The big deal is the uncertainty caused by the lapse. Farmers are ready to move past this year and prepare for the next. Decisions need to be made and steps taken to secure financial assistance from lending institutions. Not knowing the final details of new farm programs or when to expect a new farm bill makes the task more difficult. Many other people interested in farm bill programs, from conservation to research, are ready for new legislation, too. 

Congress is scheduled to get back to its legislative work once the campaign season is over. Members of Missouri’s Congressional delegation are ready to finish the farm bill. Let’s hope their colleagues are ready to do the same because continued gridlock is nothing to “hee haw” about. 

(Garrett Hawkins, of Jefferson City, Mo. is director of national legislative programs for the Missouri Farm Bureau, the state’s largest farm organization.)

Cindy Sheehan challenges legitimacy of Congress

Take it or leave it -- Cindy Sheehan says that with the passage of the Patriot Act, Congress, by gutting the Bill of Rights, has essentially made itself illegitimate.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/The-USA-MATRIOT-Act-by-Cindy-Sheehan-110218-757.html

McCaskill Joins Senators in Introducing Bill to Extend Health Insurance Coverage for Children of Military Families

Today, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill joined fellow Senators Mark Udall, Mark Begich and Barbara Mikulski in introducing a bill extending health insurance for military families. The bill enables the children of active duty service members and retirees to stay on their parents’ policies until age 26.

The TRICARE Dependent Coverage Extension Act fulfills an important goal of health insurance reform legislation – allowing parents to cover their young adult children through age 26. While the health insurance reform law, which was signed in March, extended that coverage to civilian families, separate legislation was required for families insured through TRICARE – the Department of Defense health insurance program for military service members, retirees, and their families – because it is governed by a different section of the U.S. Code than civilian health care programs. The Senators’ bill is a companion to one introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressman Martin Heinrich of New Mexico.

Extending insurance to cover young Americans until age 26 is critical, especially as they make the transition into the tough job market. TRICARE currently covers children to age 21, or 23 if they are full-time college students. The TRICARE extension will give dependent young adults without employer-provided health insurance the opportunity to pay a reasonable premium and stay covered until they are 26.

“In a tough economy, young people may not be able to find a job with decent benefits through no fault of their own, and the children of military service members are no different,” Senator McCaskill said. “Our men and women in uniform and their families make incredible sacrifices in defense of our country – we’ve got to make sure we provide them with the best health care coverage we can.”

“Members of our armed forces and their families make tremendous sacrifices for our nation, and they deserve benefits that will help keep them healthy and secure,” Senator Udall said. “Service members around the world worry about the health and financial security of their families back home. Extending existing health insurance coverage to children will help ensure we’re doing our part to provide some peace of mind to military families.”

“Being able to cover dependents on your health insurance plan up to age 26 is a key piece of the health insurance reform legislation and will allow thousands of Alaskans to keep their children on their policies saving families the extraordinary costs that can be incurred for medical treatment,” Senator Begich said. “Extending that same benefit to our military families is the right thing to do as we continually strive to make sure we show appreciation for their service to our country.”

“This is the right thing to do for the men and women who have stood sentry protecting our freedoms,” Senator Mikulski said. “If health care reform means that the kids of hedge fund managers can stay on their parents’ health insurance until they’re 26, kids in military families should be covered to age 26 too. I am honored to join Senator Udall and my Senate colleagues in introducing this bill to fix this health care reform bill error. We have our marching orders. We will fight to pass this bill.”

“With each individual who generously dedicates their life to military service, there is a significant impact on those closest to them. We know this especially well in New Mexico, where we have a long and proud tradition of military service,” said U.S. Representative Martin Heinrich (NM-1), who introduced H.R. 4923, the TRICARE Dependent Coverage Extension Act in the House last month. “Allowing parents to provide health coverage to their dependent adult children is just one of the many small things we can do to show our military families how much we appreciate them and honor their service to our country.”

Straight Talk with Sam Graves for April 22nd, 2009

Tea Parties Serve as Wake Up Call for Washington
In December of 1773, colonists boarded three British ships and threw its cargo into the Boston Harbor. This tea party served notice to the king in London that his loyal subjects in the New World believed the Tea Act had gone too far. Of course, the king and the British Parliament did not listen and passed even more authoritarian laws. This led to more protests and eventually sparked the American Revolution.
So it should be of concern to Congress that bags of tea have started showing up in our mail. Constituents fed up with Washington are once again using tea to make a point to their tone deaf leaders. Hopefully, Washington will heed this wake up call.
The issues have changed, but the sentiment is the same. The government in Washington has once again stopped listening to its constituents. In Missouri, we know that you cannot spend or tax or bail your way to prosperity. Yet, that is exactly what this government has been attempting to do.
The spending has not stopped. Instead, Congress passed the biggest budget in American history. It will result in a trillion dollar deficit this year and into the future. In fact, it will double our national debt in five years and triple it in 10 years.
Americans deserve a government that understands you cannot tax and spend your way to prosperity. Citizens from across the country are pleading with Washington to stop spending and start listening. Perhaps a good ole fashioned tea party will remind Washington that they are spending your money.