In good news, the Senate Appropriations Committee (including our Senator Tim Johnson) approved an agriculture budget that would allow the rulemaking process for the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act (GIPSA) to go ahead. The House earlier this summer stripped funding for the GIPSA rulemaking process from its ag appropriations.
Senator Johnson says GIPSA rocks:
"Market consolidation has done a disservice to our producers.... GIPSA must have the resources it needs to incorporate comments into a final rule and the Senate bill provides them [Senator Tim Johnson, in David Montgomery, "Congress Divided on GIPSA Funding," Rapid City Journal, 2011.09.11].
Senator John Thune alleges the GIPSA rule does not reflect the intent of Congress:
I continue to check in with USDA on the status of the GIPSA rule and tell ranchers and others engaged in the livestock industry that if the final rule deviates from the intent of Congress, as a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I will have an opportunity to address it once again as we write the next Farm Bill [Senator John Thune, in Montgomery, 2011.09.11].
Congresswoman Kristi Noem voted against the House Appropriations bill this summer, and she managed not to sign a letter pushed by the meat industry to oppose GIPSA, but she hasn't issued a clear public comment on her position on the GIPSA rule (must still be waiting for the memo from Speaker Boehner explaining her proper position).
Montgomery's article points out that the cattle industry has the temerity to suggest that the GIPSA rule will take away options for marketing livestock. The suggestion is laughable: GIPSA is intended to expand business options for farmers and ranchers by restoring fair market practices. Don't fall for corporate Newspeak: GIPSA is good for farmers and for capitalism.
In bad news, Senate Appropriations raided conservation programs:
In the bill approved by the Senate Committee, the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) would be cut $35 million relative to its FY 2012 farm bill-mandated level. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) would be cut $350 million. The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP) would be cut by roughly $180 million and $46 million, respectively, while the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP) and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) would be cut $50 million and $35 million, respectively. In the case of WRP, WHIP, and GRP, these cuts are as high as 30, 40, and 50 percent. As in the House bill, the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program (VPA-HIP) would be zeroed out [National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, "Senate Moves on Agriculture Spending Bill," Natural Resource Report, 2011.09.11].
Uff da. Looks like getting funding for the Dakota Grassland Conservation Program could be tough.
Of course John Thune is right that the GIPSA rules do not follow the intent of many in Congress.
It is because the meat packers have been paying off so many members of Congress to allow meat packers to cheat family farmers out of the value of their assets and commit ponzi schemes and economic frauds against their family farmers. When you have a Congress on the take, you will have Congress working for those special interests instead of fair rules for the market and the big boys who call the shots and fund their political campaigns. They will work hard to muddy the issues to get away with it and they will try to sell the best spiel the meat packer attorneys can come up with. They will provide road block after road block to justice for the little guy and will sell competitive advantage to the big boys in this way.
Stacking regulatory agencies so industries can regulate and protect themselves from the rule of law has become one of the ways these Congressmen sell out America.
What we need is a Congress that isn't as compromised as John Thune and other Congressmen happen to be. They have run our country into the ground and made sure the rule of men and the rule of their gold would rule over the rule of law. They are selling our nation out for their own self interests and doing more economic damage to rural communities than the terrorists of 911 could ever inflict.
Tom
"GIPSA is good for farmers and for capitalism"
Cory, what Tom is explaining is called "capitalism". It is a form of socialism. Some may instead use the label "fascism". All three are "NOT" Laissez Faire. I do not believe capitalism is good for farmers.
Why doesn't Noem ever take a position on anything?
Why don't we care more about that?
Steve is right. We do not have capitalism or free markets, we have markets that gain competitive advantage to large corporations because they are doing nothing less than bribing Congress. None of these costs are being counted in the market. As we speak, the USDA is funding "beginning farmers" to get hitched to corporate agriculture's control. I will be speaking of these issues at Hungry Creek Farm in Boiling Springs, TN at their 16th annual Family Farmer convention on October 1, 2011, God willing. I will be explaining how the USDA and the Judiciary Committee and Federal Courts have ignored the law of the land to give advantage in the market place to large corporations and subsidizing their scams. It is unbelievable what is and has been happening. Our country is being sold to the highest bidder.
"Corporatism should be more accurately be called Fascism as it is the merging of corporate and state interests"---Benito Mussolini.
Tom
http://www.barefootfarmer.com/events/