Category — Agriculture

In June of this year the farm bill moving through Congress gave the House and Senate a chance to cut farm subsidies.

The Sugar Racket

[snip] Congress has provided a sweet deal for sugar growers since it imposed import tariffs on sugar in 1789. Controls on domestic sugar production date back to the Jones-Costigan Act of 1934.

[snip] By reforming sugar policies, they could cut food costs for average families, make U.S. manufacturing more competitive, and end unfair benefits for a small group of wealthy sugar barons.

Components of the Sugar Program
The purpose of U.S. sugar policies is to keep domestic prices artificially high. In recent decades, U.S. sugar prices have been typically two or more times higher than prices on world markets.[snip]

Guaranteed Prices.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture runs a complex loan program to support sugar prices. The USDA makes loans to sugar processors, who use their sugar as collateral. In return, processors agree to pay sugar growers certain minimum prices. If the market price of sugar rises, processors can sell their product on the market and pay back the loan. If the market price falls, processors can forfeit their sugar to the government and not repay their loans. The effect is to guarantee prices for both processors and growers. Sometimes other techniques are used to prop up prices, such as paying producers to discard their current inventories.

Trade Restrictions.
[snip] The government applies a two-tiered system of “tariff rate quotas” to limit imports. A lower “in-quota” tariff rate is for imports within a set quota volume. A higher “over-quota” rate applies to imports in excess of the quota. [snip]

Production Quotas.
In addition to controlling sugar imports, the government imposes quotas, or “marketing allotments,” on U.S. production. Each year, the USDA decides what total U.S. sugar production ought to be and then allots it 54.35 percent to beet sugar and 45.65 percent to cane sugar. [snip]
In sum, the sugar industry is a cartel that is centrally planned from Washington.

Effects of the Sugar Program
The taxpayer cost of sugar subsidies is expected to be $1.4 billion over the next decade. More important, federal sugar policies burden American consumers by creating high prices for sugar and for products that contain sugar. The Government Accountability Office estimated that federal sugar policies impose costs on sugar consumers of $1.9 billion annually.

Last year the U.S. Department of Commerce studied the economic effects of federal sugar policies and released a damning report that had five key findings:

• Employment in U.S. food businesses that use substantial amounts of sugar is declining.
• For each sugar-growing and sugar-harvesting job saved by current sugar policies, nearly three confectionary manufacturing jobs are lost.
• Sugar costs are a major reason why some U.S. sugar-using businesses are relocating their factories abroad.
• Numerous food companies have relocated to Canada, where sugar prices are less than half of U.S. prices, and Mexico, where prices are two-thirds as high.
• Imports of food products that contain sugar are growing rapidly because it is not competitive to manufacture those items in the United States.

[snip] Chicago, once the nation’s candy-manufacturing capital, has been hit hard with thousands of lost jobs. Candymaker Fannie May closed its factory in 2004, and Brach’s moved its candy production to Mexico in 2004 blaming high sugar prices. Kraft moved its 600-worker LifeSavers factory from Michigan to Canada in 2002 to access low-cost sugar. Hershey Foods closed plants in Pennsylvania, Colorado, and California and relocated them to Canada.

Sugar policies also cause environmental damage. Large areas of the Florida Everglades have been converted to cane sugar production because of federal protections and subsidies. Sugar production damages the Everglades by land drainage, habitat destruction, and the run-off of chemicals in the fertilizers used by sugar growers.

Conclusions
Given the negative economic and environmental effects of U.S. sugar programs, why do they persist? Because Congress often decides to confer benefits on a favored few at the expense of the general public. In this case, the favored few really are few—about 42 percent of all sugar program benefits go to just 1 percent of sugar growers. [snip]

The Washington Post lamented the political corruption caused by the federal “sugar racket.” More than that, sugar policies are a textbook case of economic damage done by big government intervention in the marketplace. [snip]

In winning the House last year, Democrats portrayed themselves as reformers willing to take on special interests for the benefit of average families. They also promised to run the most ethical Congress in history.

This one small sample of the damage done by congress to the economy is an ice cube to an iceberg. Large corporations such as ADM, Union Pacific, (yup, they farm just enough to collect the loot) among others receive the majority of what we think is going to Ma and Pa Kettle.

The price of wheat, corn, rice, soybeans and other grains are at all time highs. Ethanol use as a fuel raised corn so high that most production is going to fuel, not food. Milk price per hundredweight escalate yet we are subsidizing large and small farms for the production.

All this is a tax on your food, paid before the harvest. Meat and poultry prices shoot up as the outlay for feed climbs. Add the expense of shipping as fuel-operating costs rises; add the middlemen’s appropriation plus the retailer’s revenues to the subsidies for your costs.

Congress takes care of their donors, quite well and they will damn the public to enrich their coffers. The GOP punted on this in 1996 and 2000. So, don’t hold your politicians harmless. Very few of them are untainted. Perhaps the following will help with your ideas of how good the Democrats are.

Farm bill expanding subsides, food stamps passes Senate

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Senate on Friday approved a $286 billion farm bill with an election-year expansion of subsidies for growers and food stamps for the poor.

The bill, passed on a 79-14 vote, expands subsidies for wheat, barley, oat, soybeans and several other crops and creates new grants for vegetable and fruit growers.

It also increases loan rates for sugar producers, extends dairy programs and provides more dollars for renewable energy and conservation programs to protect environmentally sensitive farmland over the next five years.

Enjoy dinner.

Since I manifest most of the requirements, and certainly this is not difficult part time work for a semi-retired cultured person, I adjudge it necessary I apply for the position. I encourage others of mind like myself to also apply for employment.

BILINGUAL MIGRANT TUTOR
Addison Northwest Supervisory Union (learn more)
Vergennes, Vermont

Job Details

Job Description Ideal candidate will be fluent in Spanish and English and will have earned a certificate in ESL. Position requires someone highly self-motivated, organized and energetic to work with 16 to 21 year old, out of school youth, in their homes in Addison and Northern Rutland Counties. Successful candidate must hold a valid driver’s license with own vehicle and must be able to work a flexible, non-traditional schedule; create lesson plans for individuals and small groups; coordinate a daily and weekly schedule; work independently and with Migrant Education Team; have excellent record keeping skills; and work with agricultural employers and local support agencies. The position is full-time, full year, at 40 hours/week beginning December 1, 2007. Position will be paid at an hourly rate, plus mileage reimbursement. Benefits will be provided. Experience with rural families working in agriculture desired. Position will be filled as soon as a suitable candidates is found. Please apply here. If you prefer to send hard copies, please send letter of interest, resume and 3 current letters of reference to Carol Wood, Migrant Education Teacher/Coordinator, Addison Northwest Supervisory Union, 48 Green Street, Suite 1, Vergennes, VT 05491.

Position Type: Full-time
Positions Available: 1

Equal Opportunity Employer

Addison Northwest Supervisory Union is committed to maintaining a work and learning environment free from discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, pregnancy, gender, sexual orientation, marital/civil union status, ancestry, place of birth, age, citizenship status, veteran status, political affiliation or disability, as defined and required by state and federal laws.
Requirements:

· At least 3 years of relevant experience preferred

· Bachelors degree preferred
Application Questions: There are no application questions required for this job posting.
Contact Information Sally Bushey
48 Green Street, Suite #1
Vergennes, Vermont 05491
Phone: 802-877-3332

Fax: 802-877-3628

In Vermont, our school taxes are close to the highest in the nation in per pupil spending. So why are we educating the citizens of sovereign countries who don’t even pay taxes to the educational fund? The age group puts them outside the usual range of students.
Will the individual hired be a legal resident or is that too much to ask. One notes in the EOE statement, citizenship status doesn’t disqualify one; being a citizen might. I shall take the chance since there are no questions asked.

(see application questions above)

Legally, I have many of the correct impediments. I’m physically disabled (service connected) which means I’m a veteran. My race is Amerind, color is ruddy, Animist religion, born in the Algonquin Nation, have gender (not confused), and have the correct sexual orientation du jour.

Politically, I’m a moderate fascist (Socialist) with a strong politically correct bend. All of the previous are well defined and required by state and federal laws.

(See EOE section above)

As a former Border Patrol person, I have a college degree, and used to conversing with migrants in native vernacular, educating them so to speak.

Educational help of this type should consist of teaching them enough English to get on the correct bus back across the border. And making sure they do! No problemo amigo. Va ya con Diablo compadre.

Milk Prices Rise to Record Highs

PARIS (AP) - Got milk? Well, you’re going to need more cash these days to get it.

Growing appetites for dairy in Asia and limited worldwide supply are among a number of factors driving prices of the dairy drink to record highs. [snip]

Milk prices hit a record last month in the United States, where consumers paid an average $3.80 a gallon, compared to $3.29 in January, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It forecasts prices will remain high throughout the year. [snip]

“Global demand has been extraordinary for American dairy products, but global supplies of dairy products have been exceptionally tight,” said Michael Marsh, head of the Western United Dairyman trade group in California, the top dairy-producing U.S. state.

“From the American dairy farmers’ perspective, you have almost a perfect storm.” [snip]

Governments in the United States, Canada, the European Union and Japan have a range of policies, including tariffs and quotas, that insulate their milk from international prices, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization.

These systems are under strain, as high rewards in the globalized market are inspiring milk producers to challenge the old practices. [snip]

In the United States, milk processors and distributors “are being challenged by the most stubbornly inflationary dairy markets in history,” said Gregg Engles, CEO of Dallas-based Dean Foods, the largest U.S. processor and distributor of milk and other dairy products, where profits are down.

Through all this, dairy farmers in New England are calling on the politicians to maintain higher dairy price supports. The Dairy Compact adds a percentage to the price of a hundredweight of milk; this check comes from the government, not the processors.

With the government’s meddling in commerce, we get the skewed results of paying extra in a rising market, while keeping marginal entities in production.

The housing market is down; shall we subsidize the plumbers and electricians who might have trouble getting contracts. By the politicians’ thinking, the answer is yes. It’s only a matter of finding something to tax to pay for the program.

Audacious Ethanol Hopes?

Have a reality check on the hype about ethanol; with Iowa coming up, it’s all you are going to hear. They’ll be much out gassing over Big Oil. Here’s a unspun look, at least as close as you’ll get from other places. Puffing up about ethanol the leading three Democratic presidential grandees bloviate about how they will solve our reliance on foreign oil and rid your lawn of crabgrass.

[snip] Is there enough ethanol for every car to run on E85? Will there ever be enough? How much does E85 cost? We look at statements made by Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as well as former Sen. John Edwards. We find their statistics to be accurate as far as they go, but we also find they don’t go very far.

Can Every Car Run on E85?

On April 3, 2006, Illinois Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama delivered a speech in Chicago titled “Energy Independence and the Safety of Our Planet.” In it he said:

Obama: Already, some cars on the road have the flexible-fuel tanks necessary for them to run on E85… it’s time for the government to cover this small cost, which currently runs at just $100 per car.

John Edwards made a similar promise in a speech on May 31, 2007, posting the following on his campaign Web site:

Edwards Campaign Web site: [John Edwards] will create new markets for ethanol by requiring all new cars to run on both gasoline and E85 ethanol [snip]

It is true that, as of November 2004, there were as many as 6 million vehicles in the U.S. capable of running on E85, compared with approximately 230 million capable of running on gasoline and diesel. Also, Obama’s estimate that it would cost $100 per car to transition them to E85-capable tanks originated with Daniel Kammen, a professor at the University of California Berkeley and director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory. We take no issue there. [snip]

E85 vs. Gasoline: Which One Is Cheaper?

Obama claims E85 is cheaper. We ask: Cheaper than what? The latest Clean Cities Alternative Fuels Price Report, which was issued in March and is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, shows the average retail price per gallon of E85 was approximately 20 cents less than that of gasoline, but ethanol was 66 cents more expensive when measured as a per-gallon gasoline equivalent. [snip]

Other renewable fuels would need to be tapped and inventions introduced to bring about significant change in the amount of gasoline imported by the U.S.

E85, Where Art Thou?

Even if every car could be equipped with flex-fuel tanks, is there enough E85 to go around? Sen. Clinton, who has gone from opposing corn-based ethanol tax incentives to supporting them over the last five years, had the following to say on May 23, 2006:

Clinton: We have an underused resource, American farmland, and rural communities across our country eager to try something new and do their part to help solve our energy problems. [snip]

It’s true that the U.S. has produced 4.5 billion gallons of ethanol, according to a July 2006 Department of Energy report. [snip]

In addition, E85 represents only 1 percent of all ethanol consumption (the other 99 percent, according to a 2006 CRS report, goes toward fuel blends consisting of up to 10 percent ethanol, also called “gasohol”). With this in mind, a 50 percent increase in biorefinery capacity is merely a drop in the bucket when it comes to replacing the overwhelming amount of gasoline we consume. The CRS report outlines some of the existing barriers to expanded ethanol use:

CRS: [B]arring a drastic realignment of U.S. field crop production patterns, corn-based ethanol’s potential as a petroleum import substitute appears to be limited by crop area constraints, among other factors. [snip]

The Department of Energy provides a map of the fueling stations currently offering E85. [snip]

So What About the Oil Companies?

In the same 2006 speech, Obama referred to the role oil companies could play in bringing about increased consumption of renewable fuels: {snip]

The CRS reported in March that a new ethanol pump could cost $100,000 to $200,000 dollars. The Senator, however, was considering three different ranges of costs for refurbishing existing pumps, as opposed to building new ones. The first figure, cited by the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition, put the cost at $5,000 per pump. The second came from the Illinois Corn Growers Association, which gave a range of $2,000 to $8,000. The final figure came from the Renewable Fuels Association: It cited a price range of $15,000 to $30,000. It should be noted, however, that each of these organizations represent groups and individuals with a vested interest in increased ethanol production.

But Obama claims oil companies are “standing in the way” of increased ethanol production. The Senator appears to be referring to oil companies’ plans last year to increase gasoline refinery capacity in the U.S. …scrapped when the president proposed significantly increasing renewable fuels production in his 2007 State of the Union address. [snip]

These developments lead many to believe that the oil companies are intentionally delaying investments in extra refining capacity to keep gas prices high, though we could find no conclusive evidence that intentional market manipulation is taking place.

Still, even if the oil companies immediately began giving 1 percent of their profits toward the installation of E85 pumps, other obstacles — like limitations on how much corn the nation can produce or the fact that many flex fuel vehicle owners aren’t even aware that their cars can run on E85 — are significant.

We do not dispute that ethanol along with other renewable fuels such as methanol and biodiesel have the potential to play a significant role in moving the U.S. away from foreign oil consumption and lessening greenhouse gas emissions. But ethanol has a long way to go before the campaign promises made by Clinton, Edwards and Obama can be fulfilled.

Congressional Research Service. Ethanol And Biofuels: Agriculture, Infrastructure, and Market Constraints Related to Expanded Production. Washington: GPO, 2007.

Congressional Research Service. Fuel Ethanol: Background and Public Policy Issues. Washington: GPO, 2006.

With more “real” scientists calling global warming garbage, the Luddite loons need a new calamity du jour. And the winner is: Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD. Another technological bogyman to paralyze progress is at hand. Our highly educated population will clap the aluminum hats on their pointy heads, grab the crayons and poster board and head for the predictable protest sites with the customary fools leading the parade.

Are mobile phones wiping out our bees?

It seems like the plot of a particularly far-fetched horror film. But some scientists suggest that our love of the mobile phone could cause massive food shortages, as the world’s harvests fail.

They are putting forward the theory that radiation given off by mobile phones and other hi-tech gadgets is a possible answer to one of the more bizarre mysteries ever to happen in the natural world - the abrupt disappearance of the bees that pollinate crops. [snip]

The theory is that radiation from mobile phones interferes with bees’ navigation systems, preventing the famously homeloving species from finding their way back to their hives. Improbable as it may seem, there is now evidence to back this up.

Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) occurs when a hive’s inhabitants suddenly disappear, leaving only queens, eggs and a few immature workers… [snip]

No one knows why it is happening. Theories involving mites, pesticides, global warming and GM crops have been proposed, but all have drawbacks. [snip]

Now a limited study at Landau University has found that bees refuse to return to their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby. Dr Jochen Kuhn, who carried it out, said this could provide a “hint” to a possible cause.

Ah, a clue my dear Watson, follow the trail.

 Dr George Carlo, who headed a massive study by the US government and mobile phone industry of hazards from mobiles in the Nineties, said: “I am convinced the possibility is real.”

Dr. Carlo has appeared on 20/20, 60 Minutes, World News Tonight, CBS News with Dan Rather and The Today’s Show, as well as on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC.

Putting these bastions of journalistic integrity on one’s resume is crucial only to the moobats.

Evidence of dangers to people from mobile phones is increasing. But proof is still lacking, largely because many of the biggest perils, such as cancer, take decades to show up.

Most research on cancer has so far proved inconclusive. But an official Finnish study found that people who used the phones for more than 10 years were 40 per cent more likely to get a brain tumour on the same side as they held the handset.

Equally alarming, blue-chip Swedish research revealed that radiation from mobile phones killed off brain cells, suggesting that today’s teenagers could go senile in the prime of their lives. [snip]

I suggest the liberal education provided to youngsters has already caused this condition.

“Preliminary work has identified several likely factors that could be causing or contributing to CCD,” says Dennis vanEngelsdorp, acting state apiarist with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. “Among them are mites and associated diseases, some unknown pathogenic disease and pesticide contamination or poisoning.”

Initial studies of dying colonies revealed a large number of disease organisms present, with no one disease being identified as the culprit, vanEngelsdorp explains. Ongoing case studies and surveys of beekeepers experiencing CCD have found a few common management factors, but no common environmental agents or chemicals have been identified.

Truthers recently returned from alien abduction learned the authentic derivation of wayward bees. Positive proof following.

 Disoriented bees? Ah, well this is a possibility. But what would make them disoriented? Perhaps it is the 250 HZ signals being pumped out of GWEN stations all over America. This signal makes people angry, so that they support the administrations idea of going after Iran and violence in general. It works great for mass manipulation of opinion. Unfortunately, the same signal will induce a misdirection of up to 10 degrees in the navigation ability of the honeybee. They go away from the hive and never come back because they can no longer find it. That’s why it’s only happening in the US.

Perhaps the most puzzling aspect of this is that US media has never ventured to question why it is only happening here. Somebody must have told them to clam up on this issue or the current crop of US reporters got their degrees in journalism out of a Cracker Jack box.

Now what the hell are GWEN stations, you might want to ask, and what could they have to do with the catastrophic die-off of honey bees…

GWEN, the Ground Wave Emergency Network, is a military communications network, consisting of some 300 transmitters dotting the whole of the continental United States. Each tower is 300-500 feet high. The stations are from 200 to 250 miles apart, so that a signal can go from coast to coast from one station to another. The official purpose is “to ensure adequate communication between command authorities and land-based strategic nuclear forces in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States mainland.” But there are others who say, a different, hidden use of the system may be “electromagnetic mind-altering technology” using ELF or Extremely Low Frequency waves.

 According to a 1982 Air Force review of biotechnology, ELF has a number of potential military uses, including “dealing with terrorist groups, crowd control, controlling breaches of security at military installations, and antipersonnel techniques in tactical warfare.” The same report states:

“Electromagnetic systems would be used to produce mild to severe physiological disruption or perceptual distortion or disorientation. They are silent, and counter-measures to them may be difficult to develop.”

The best prophylatic for the electromagnetic weapons systems is found at ones’ local grocery store. Reynolds foil is just one brand name. Avail yourself of your brand of choice; socialists may select by price.

Dash for green fuel pushes up price of meat in US

The price of meat is set to rise in America as the nation’s helter-skelter dash to convert corn into road fuel begins to take its toll on the supply of food.

The US Department of Agriculture has said that meat supply will fall this year because of the high cost of feed. Output of beef, pork and chicken is expected to decline by one billion pounds as farmers react to the soaring cost of feeding their livestock. [snip]

The USDA is predicting that the 2006 corn crop will sell for an average of $3.10 a bushel at the farm gate, the highest for a decade. Faced with extortionate feed costs, cattle and poultry farmers are rearing fewer animals and slaughtering them early. That means a sudden reversal in the annual meat production gain, representing a fall of 1.7lb per person.

“There is a new demand component,” Shayle Shagam, a livestock analyst at USDA, said. “Livestock producers have to bid against the ethanol industry to get supplies of corn.”

The biofuel revolution’s unpleasant negative consequence was first felt south of Rio Grande, when the escalating price of corn affected a food staple. Mexico’s tortilla inflation crisis is spreading north to the heartland of rib-eye steak and chicken wings. The USDA predicts that food prices will rise by up to 3.5 per cent this year as farmers rein in output in response to feedstock costs.

When congress foolishly passed the fuel additive change, they placed a tariff on the importation of ethanol from South America. Production of ethanol there is primarily from sugar cane, a much cheaper source. Creating a constricted market has expensive retributions.

Ethanol costs more per gallon than gas and has 15% less BTU’s than gas in equal measure. We will see a commensurate rise in the cost of food. Transportation of fuel becomes a problem. Ethanol is trucked or transported by railcar since it destroys the pipelines. As of now the rail system doesn’t have surplus railcars to handle the increase. Other bulk items will be relegated to second class to accommodate ethanol transport, increasing prices on items in short supply.

One more joy from a command type of economy. At least the veg-heads can drink their fuel.

As promised, I now present the THIRD TIER targets for the GOP in 2006. And no, by tramp I am not referring to former President Clinton.

New York: Most conservatives won’t say it out loud, but Hillary is almost guaranteed to win if she runs again in NY. Rudy could likely mount the strongest challenge against her, but that’s even debatable. Pataki’s low popularity doesn’t help the cause and with the MSM gushing over Spitzer, it is likely that there will be a strong Democratic turnout. Meanwhile, Shrillary is gleefully waiting for the GOP to start their attacks so she can play victim to the big blue state’s liberal base.

Vermont: Sen. Jim Jeffords will have to decide in 2006 whether he wants to run as an independent or even run at all. Back in 2001, this stray dog ditched the GOP and President Bush just six months after winning re-election as a Republican. Maybe a few “grass root” supporters could talk the fiery Howard Dean into running against Jeffords? Now, that would be something to scream about.

THE WILD CARDS

Delaware: Sen. Tom Carper knocked off the late Sen. Bill Roth (of Roth IRA fame) by a whopping 12 points in 2000. Since then, he has kept a low and moderate profile and will not be in jeopardy unless GOP Rep. Mike Castle grows a sack and takes him on.

Wisconsin: Sen. Herb Kohl could find a tough opponent in Tommy Thompson if he decided to take run. Also, if Kohl retires, this seat becomes a toss up.

Nebraska: Conservative Sen. Ben Nelson’s job will likely be spared considering his toughest potential opponent took a job in the Bush Administration.

Code Blue Alert: There are several Democrats that may be considering throwing in the towel after years of minority status. Depending on the mood of the nation, the candidates, and current events, these seats could be potential targets for the GOP. The hawkish Joe Lieberman (CT), the very partisan Dianne Feinstein (CA), the aging Daniel Akaka (HI), the left’s favorite Klansman Robert Byrd (WV) and of course the manslaughtering drunk, Ted Kennedy (MA) could decide to retire in ‘06 putting more pressure on the Dems to protect open seats. We can only hope.

Coming Soon - the GOP hit list!