Thoughts from the Middle of Nowhere

In a lot of ways, I really wonder about this permanent disaster relief idea. I really truly believe that if there was a permanent disaster relief fund, there would be pressure to find a disaster every year to use the funds that are there. They will never build up to be used in a true disaster. Yearly questionable disasters will eat it up. Have you ever seen government money that doesn't get appropriated if it is available? I haven't and this would be no exception. Is the system for disaster aid for agriculture working now? Not really but a permanent fund won't fix it.

I really like this comment in the story.

"Our highest priority is let's set up a permanent program," he said. "... We would urge your support in helping America's farmers and ranchers creating a permanent program; give them a helping hand, not a handout."

Isn't taking money from the government, which comes from taxpayers, a handout? It sure seems like it to me. I know they are trying to sugar coat it to get it passed in Congress and make it seem "noble" some how, but a handout is a handout. I'm not to sure calling it a "helping hand" makes anything but a semantic difference.

Then I note something else in the story. The way this "fund" would work, is they would add 1 to 1.5 billion dollars every year for disaster relief. They claim it might not all be spent every year, and I have some ocean front Montana property to sell you, and the fund will build up. They then give us that "Since 1998, Congress has approved 23 ad hoc disaster bills totaling $47 billion." That works out to be almost 6 billion dollars a year in disaster aid for agriculture. So how does a fund of 1.5 billion a year cover these costs? What does Congress plan on doing if there are more disasters than their "relief bill" can fund? Maybe bring up ad hoc disaster bills just like they do today? I'm sure they will.

I just don't think this is going to work out real well. A permanent disaster relief fund would just make farmers and ranchers more of a beggar as they go hat in hand to Congress, or bureaucrats, whichever control this mythical fund, every time there is a little problem that they want money for out of the "fund." Is this how we want the American public to see us, hat in hand, begging for money, cleaning out this disaster fund every year because it is there? I just don't think this is a good idea but I'm sure I'm in the minority. Most guys want this. They like begging I guess.

Never stand begging for that which you have the power to earn. Miguel de Cervantes

Will President Bush sign the disaster aid/assistance that Congress recently passed? He has never been a big fan of Agricultural disaster aid but he might sign this one.

I have been talking about this disaster aid for a while. A lot of it is drought assistance for the last couple of years of drought. I made it through last year but I did not realize how bad it was until this year and the wet weather we have been receiving. I guess I had rose colored glasses on last year when it came to the drought. I just downplayed it but it was bad.

There are a lot of farmers and ranchers looking for this disaster assistance. The article states farmers in Montana will be eligible for the aid but says nothing about ranchers. It would be curious to know if there is any aid for ranchers. I'm not asking for any aid, but if it was offered I would accept.

When you really think about it, can the government ever make us, farmers and ranchers, whole after a drought or other such disaster? Most of us invest a lot of blood, sweat, tears and soul into raising our crops and when mother nature deals us a bum hand, can we be made whole? We can't be made whole, real simple. In a way, disaster aid is just a way for politicians to feel better about themselves that they are doing something for the common man. It's also a way the politicians in rural states buy votes. It kind of makes a guy feel like a whore for taking the disaster aid. You can't pass up the money but it leaves a bad taste in your mouth when you get it.

The universe as we know it is a joint product of the observer and the observed. Teilhard de Chardin

We all knew it was coming, the Democrats are adding agricultural disaster aid into a "supplemental spending bill." When I first saw this headline it looked like maybe Congress was finally going to get somewhere with Disaster aid for those who need it. It turns out I was wrong.

The Democrats are attaching this disaster aid to legislation that would withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by next year. This is a sure way to get the disaster aid vetoed by the President if they can even get it through Congress. Reports are that the chances of getting this through the House are slim the way it is and the Senate isn't even considering anything remotly the same. Are the Democrats hoping to garner a few votes for their political Iraq agenda in the House by attaching disaster aid to it? I would say yes, that's what they are trying to do and it's wrong.

I was hoping the Democrats would be above such political games as the Republicans used to play. It appears they aren't Would it be so difficult for the Democrats to allow a vote on Disaster aid in a package all by itself that isn't attached to such an emotionally charged issue as a mandatory troop withdrawal from Iraq? Obviously it is for them.

The disaster aid needs to be severed from this bill. Even if the House passes it, it will be vetoed and they don't have enough votes to get a veto overridden. How like politicians, get desperate people's hope up that you are going to help them then play a game to insure that it will be killed so you don't have to do it. That way you can claim you support the desperate people when you really don't. They were just the pawns in a power struggle for the 2008 elections. I hope farmers and ranchers recognize how they are being used here and why. The Congress doesn't want to help them, just use their pain in a game and laugh the whole time. What a mess, thanks to Politicians.

For he who has health has hope; and he who has hope, has everything. Owen Arthur

New route sought for ag disaster aid

Farm-state members of Congress say they hope an upcoming war spending bill will be an opportunity to secure billions of dollars in agricultural disaster aid.

They say it won't be easy.

Sens. Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., have been leading the effort to pay farmers for losses due to drought, flooding and other disasters. Farmers in North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Montana, Wyoming and several Midwestern states have suffered from weather-related losses, including a drought that hit many areas hard over the past few years.

Members of Congress from those states have tried several times to move the aid but have yet to overcome opposition from the White House and conservative Republicans who think it is too expensive.

I see there are members of Congress still trying to get disaster aid to farmers and ranchers for last year drought and other weather related disasters. The tactic now? Attach the spending to a spending bill to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I guess anything is fair in love, war, and disaster aid. It will be interesting to see if this happens now with the Democrats in charge. They promised it would but I will have to see to believe.

Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts. Albert Einstein

Drought aid derailed again

Congressional efforts to provide billions of dollars in agricultural disaster aid were thwarted again Tuesday, leaving the issue to languish until Democrats take over both chambers in January.

North Dakota Sens. Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan, both Democrats, attempted to attach $4.8 billion in aid for struggling farmers to an agriculture spending bill.

But Republicans objected to the provision as the White House issued a veto threat, saying it was too expensive. Supporters were not able to get the 60 votes to overcome the objection.

No surprise here, I expected as much. The question becomes if the Democratic Congress will be able to muster the will power to pass Drought Aid and if it does, not a sure thing if you ask me, will The President veto it. The President has vowed to veto any disaster aid for farmers so it will be interesting to see if he follows through.

The whole disaster thing drags on. I'm sure glad I am not holding my breathe over it and in dire need of it. A person could die waiting for politicians to make up their minds.

You have to wait until the thing crystallizes in your own mind, and very often some of the ideas you have to abandon because they are of such an improvisational nature that we have really no notation that is adequate enough to be able to explicitly put it down on paper. Leo Ornstein

Drought aid still dependent on President Bush

Drought aid may get through Congress by the first of the year, but only if President Bush goes along. That’s what South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson told the Women Involved in Farm Economics (WIFE) Annual Convention in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Saturday.

According to Johnson, the new Democratic majority in Congress will have to work closely with President Bush if it wants to get anything meaningful done for agriculture including drought disaster aid. And Johnson said drought relief will have to be narrowly tailored if it's going to pass Congress during the upcoming lame-duck session.

"We may have to tweak it here and there in term of better targeting, and I'm all for that anyway," Johnson told Brownfield. "And so there is some possibility that we could get a disaster package through the lame duck session," he added. "We're sure going to try."

There is still talk about drought aid around. I will have to see it to believe it. What I found interesting in this story was the final paragraph.

Pothoff says WIFE supports inclusion of a permanent disaster aid title in the next farm bill. That's a provision also supported by incoming House Ag Committee Chairman Collin Peterson of Minnesota and other farm state lawmakers.

Permanent Disaster Aid!!!! How in the hell will that work! Are we going to start planning our disasters from year to year ahead of time so it can be supported by the Farm Bill? I wonder what they have planned in the way of disaster for this area next year. Drought, locusts, plague? Hope they let us know ahead of time. This sounds ludicrous to me.

In politics stupidity is not a handicap. Napoleon Bonaparte

Aid Is a Bumper Crop for Farmers

In the spring of 2000, Congress decided to do something about its costly and politically driven practice of giving farmers a disaster payment each time a storm damaged their crops.

The lawmakers voted to use $8 billion in new taxpayer subsidies to help farmers buy crop insurance to protect them against losses. The insurance would replace the disaster payments and reduce government costs.

But shortly after passing the Agricultural Risk Protection Act, Congress lost its fiscal will. One week before the presidential election, it passed a new $1.8 billion disaster bill to assist farmers hurt by bad weather. Two others followed in subsequent years, totaling more than $6 billion. Today, after a searing drought in the Plains, farm-state legislators are pushing for billions more in aid.

Yes, disaster aid is a crop in and of itself for farmers. I will not deny this and anybody that does is not living in reality. This above article is very interesting and a good read for all of you who are interested in disaster aid and farming. It points out how crop insurance is a government subsidized program, so that paying for disaster aid is like double dipping. You get crop insurance payments and disaster aid, all from the government.

The interesting thing here, not covered by the article is how you qualify for most disaster aid. Your crops have to be covered by crop insurance. No crop insurance, no disaster aid. So while they call it double dipping, you have no choice. To partake in the farm programs you have to have crop insurance which then authorizes you to receive disaster aid.

Those farmers have come to depend on both crop insurance and disaster payments, which together allow for covering up to 95 percent of the value of their crops. "Taxpayers are funding something good, the rural life," said Terry Aronson, a farmer in the flood-prone Devil's Lake area of North Dakota, who has received nearly $300,000 in disaster aid the past decade.

I like this one. Do you taxpayers enjoy "funding something good, the rural life?" I have a question as usual, what makes the rural life good if it requires such large doses of disaster aid on a regular basis? Another question, what makes the rural life good? It is intrinsically good somehow or is it the regular infusion of taxpayer money that makes it good? If everybody chases the "good,rural life" will the rural life be rural anymore since most people will be there or will the cities be rural?

Fisher said he doesn't begrudge growers who have collected disaster aid, despite the cost to taxpayers. His own farm has gotten some. "Whether it's right or wrong, if they are offering it, you're foolish to turn it down," he said.

Somebody with my opinion, right or wrong, if they offer it you are a fool not to take it. That is like the program that is being offered in my area nbow. Could I get by without it? Yes. Will I apply for it? Yes, a person is a fool to turn it down. I might not be very bright, but I am not a fool.

Congressional sponsors of disaster legislation offer a variety of reasons for their bills. They say federally subsidized insurance doesn't cover all of a farmer's losses, and disaster aid fills the gaps. It helps to stabilize rural economies, which don't have many other options. And it offsets rising fuel and production costs while securing cheap food for Americans.

Ah, the real reason stated for the farm programs and disaster aid. Cheap food. The government realizes that if people can't afford food and are hungry they will throw the bums out of office by the ballot box or by force. Hungry people are capable of anything, like overthrowing civil authority, and that scares those in power. so, what do they do, keep the price of food low to keep the masses fat and happy. Those of us that produce the food aren't included in their calculations. If we can't make a living on the cheap food that is not their problem, just the flow of cheap food to the masses.

"We don't like it any more than the taxpayers do. With disaster assistance, we're at the whims of the politicians," he said. "But we need something. I don't care what you name it.

"It's feast or famine here. Economically, does it make sense? Probably not. Philosophically, I don't know. Americans want cheap food, and they want it when they want it."

Lot's of things said here. Most farmers don't like it that's true, and many do need it to stay in business. Like I said above, cheap food. But I think it's the politicians that want the cheap food for the reasons stated, not the people.

I will not beat the drum for disaster aid. Many need it and want it but I will not demean myself for asking (begging) for it. I will accept it if it is offered. The fun part is watching to see if it is going to be offered. Only time will tell.

Never stand begging for that which you have the power to earn. Miguel de Cervantes

Rehberg opts out of signing House drought petition

Montana's lone congressman is refusing to buck Republican leaders and join with Democrats to force a vote on drought assistance for the nation's farmers and ranchers.

Rep. Dennis Rehberg will not sign the House Democrats' petition that seeks to bring the matter to the House floor before lawmakers adjourn late Friday or early Saturday, his spokesman Todd Shriber said. Congress will not return until after the November elections.

As of Thursday afternoon, Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado was the only Republican who had signed the petition. Democrats need 16 Republicans to cross party lines and join them. Republican leaders are blocking the measure, and President Bush has said he will veto it.

This just shows how the whole drought aid thing is pure politics in an election year. Will the same Democrats support disaster aid after the election? It will be interesting to see.

Should Rep. Dennis Rehberg sign the discharge petition? In my opinion, yes. He would show his independence of the Republican leadership and support for Montana's farmers and ranchers. But, since the Democrats aren't focusing on his seat this year he is running very strong against a lightly funded candidate. He needs to look into the future though. In two years the Montana Democrats will target him and he doesn't need this black mark, at least as farmers and ranchers see it, on his record.

It will be interesting to see if the lame duck Congress will act on this disaster aid like they claim. My bets are they won't.

The idea that we cause harm by doing what we perceive to be the right thing, that's another theme that interests me. Because most people don't intend to cause harm, they cause harm by doing the right thing - in their mind. Andrew McCarthy

House Democrats launch Discharge Petition

Democratic members of the House of Representatives have introduced a discharge petition in an effort to bring ag disaster relief to the floor. Minnesota representative, Collin Peterson is Ranking Minority Member of the House Ag Committee; he says the real problem is a dispute over how any disaster package would be paid for. He charges the Administration wants spending cuts to offset any aid instead of the usual emergency spending. Peterson contends that has not been the case in previous situations. “When it came to the Iraq war, didn’t have to be paid for. In the supplemental bill, we spent $2.3 billion on bird flu,” which Peterson says has a slim chance of ever materializing, “But that was an emergency.” Yet he contends at a time when farmers desperately need help, “That’s not an emergency.” Peterson says the Discharge Petition does not have any specifics about a bill, it is designed to bring a bill forth that they can then work on. “We stand ready to work with them to craft a bill that will get the aid to the people that need it.”

The petition requires that a majority of House members, 218, sign it and that means some Republicans would have to join the Democrats. Peterson says, “It only takes a handful and we have enough Republicans that have disaster in their districts to make a majority here to get this thing up.” Representatives can sign the petition as long as the House is in session, he hopes to get enough to force action before the recess, and otherwise they’ll continue it in the lame duck session after the election.

The Democrats are really angling for any vote they can get. Even if they get thier disharge petiton the package will go nowhere. The Senate leadership will never allow it. Politics at its best.

In the United States today, we have more than our share of nattering nabobs of negativism. Spiro T. Agnew

Billions for drought a tough sell

Penny Altendorf isn't a farmer, but the ongoing drought is affecting her family nonetheless.

She and her husband Richard own an aerial sprayer company, a business that is dependent on the weather in eastern North Dakota where they live. And it's been so dry this year, Altendorf says, struggling farmers in the area are cutting down on expenses by using ground sprayers.

.....

Indeed, farm-state lawmakers are asking for a lot of money when money is scarce. A $4 billion proposal is pending in an agriculture spending bill; Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., introduced a new version last week that would provide $6.5 billion.

Lawmakers aren't optimistic about the chances of the money making it through Congress anytime soon.

Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the Republican chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said the House "is probably not going to go along with it."

"It's always been pulled out by the House," he said. "I don't know."

House Republicans pulled the $4 billion package out of a spending bill designed to pay for the Iraq war earlier this year, and leaders have shown no public indication of changing their minds on the issue.

Reps. Stephanie Herseth, D-S.D., and Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., both say they are frustrated there is not more attention on rural issues as the election nears.

"Things could be very different after the election, and I believe there are rural seats hanging on this disaster bill," Pomeroy said.

North Dakota's Conrad said it would be easiest to push the package before the election, when political pressure is highest.

Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., who is in a tight election race, is pushing his own disaster legislation that includes targeted money for fighting wildfires.

But Republican leadership, preoccupied with several defense and national security bills this month, has so far shown little interest in moving agricultural disaster assistance soon.

To start with I will say I am neutral on the whole issue of disaster aid. I take advantage of it when it is offered, but I don't go out and ask or lobby for it. With our spiraling deficits the Federal Government is seeing I am not sure how wise a large disaster bill for agriculture is. I will also say I find the whole concept of farmers and ranchers standing with their hats in hands and begging for disaster aid disgusting. I know to get ahead in our system you have to make some noise, the squeaky wheel gets the oil, but to whine and beg for disaster aid from Congress bothers my sensibilities.

Why should agriculture be the only one who takes it in the shorts for money though with the deficit out of control? Is Congress cutting funds elsewhere for this reason? They keep spending money on everything else they can see why punish farmers? I'll tell you why, they make up less than 2% of the population so it's very safe for the House of Representatives to ignore them. With two Senators from every state there is a lot more pressure there to do something but it is always killed in the House.

On to the question, is disaster aid important? For many small farmers and businesses that rely of farmers it is. One would think that the Republicans worried about maintaining control of the House and Senate this election cycle would throw some bones to farm state legislators to help out. I can tell you what is happening there too. They assume the farm states are solidly Republican and will not rock the boat.

How this will all turn out will be interesting. More and more the farmers of the country are losing out in the political process. The small farmer gets hurt and corporate interests take over more and more production. That's what the American people want I guess so when they are paying out the nose to large corporations for food they will get what they deserve.

Americans believe that people should work hard and get ahead on their own, but when disaster strikes and they need help with retirement or disability, Americans as a whole should come to their aid. Jacob Hacker