Whom do you trust?

Commentary

When I was a reporter, my mom would tell everyone I was a “journalist.” When I became the head of government relations for an association and then moved to my own government/communications consulting business, she would tell folks I was a “government affairs representative.” She could not utter the word “lobbyist.” My mother and President Obama likely would agree when it came to the dreaded “special interests” in Washington.

I was building a resume not every mother could love, and I’m sure she feared at some point I’d sell used cars or go into the adult entertainment business.

But this week, I was pleased, though not surprised, to learn the public has more confidence in my chosen professions than it does in Congress. Whereas 25% of those polled by the Gallup Organization have confidence in newspapers, and 16% trust big business, only 11% of Americans trust Congress as an institution, down a whopping 17% from last year. The kicker: Confidence Congress is one point lower than the previous all-time low set in 2008.

I always said the American public is a whole lot smarter than folks here in DC think.

This sad number should be an eye-opener for every member of Congress.  Alas, I’m afraid it will be brushed off in the same cynical manner most folks on Capitol Hill treat the folks who put them in office.

But let’s ask ourselves why the public doesn’t trust Congress. Could it be the inability for Republicans and the Democrats to agree on anything, including apparently what day of the week it is? Could it be how Congress appears to operate in a vacuum, oblivious to what’s happening in the real world, enacting legislation its members can neither explain nor pay for? Could it be the constant reminders that many members continually demonstrate greater loyalty to their party than to their constituency?

Yup to one and all.

Instead of a wake up call, this poll will be likely dismissed with one of those “that-doesn’t-apply-to-me” mutterings.  And the fact is similar polls reveal that while the public does not have faith in the institution that is Congress, individuals generally respond favorably when it comes to their own elected representative or senator. I think this has more to do with not wanting to shoulder blame for putting the yahoo in office to begin with.

As we get closer to the November 2 midterm elections, I can guarantee you every member of the House and one-third of the Senate will miraculously become incredibly responsive to the good people who put them in office. The problem is this responsiveness only lasts until November 3.

What do I think this means for the November election? Let me allow the good folks at Gallup to explain in words used to lay out a previous poll on the dismal job approval ratings for Congress — a different set of sad numbers than those compiled for “trust in the institution” poll:

“From a historical perspective, Americans’ job approval ratings of Congress in 2010 rank among the lowest Gallup has measured in a midterm election year. The 16% recorded in March is the lowest single reading in a midterm election year, just above the low from all years of 14% in July 2008.  This year’s low approval ratings for Congress are a potentially ominous sign…Gallup has found greater party seat change in Congress in midterm elections when Congress has had low approval ratings.”

So there you have it. The folks on Capitol Hill enjoy neither your trust nor approval. I think the old axiom, “there are none so blind as those who will not see” applies.

Oh, by the way, I never wanted to run for Congress. Mom could never have found the appropriate euphemism.

Lame duck ahead

Commentary

There’s nothing lobbyists dread more than a lame duck session of Congress, that “work period” called after the general election, ostensibly to complete unfinished business. Generally, lame duck sessions bode no good — too much mischief can occur, both good and bad, depending on which side of an issue you stand.

The term lame duck derives from old British description of a stock broker unable to meet his financial obligations, and hence, is disgraced and unable to make a living. My preferred derivation comes from British nautical slang: A damaged ship was considered a “lame duck” because neither a lame duck or damaged ship could move easily across the water.

So it is with a “special” session of Congress that’s peppered with members who either lost reelection or retired. This is their last hurrah, their final shot at “legacy” legislation without having to worry about the consequences of votes back home. Imagine how scary it gets if the party in power will no longer enjoy that status come the new session in January, 2011? Talk about your last hurrah.

The good news is most lame duck sessions are short and tend to be focused on a couple of pieces of legislation so close to enactment it’s worth calling the folks back. However, another phenomenon of lame duck sessions is the “omnibus” bill. This is what I call trash can legislation, or a bill that carries anything and everything that didn’t make it during regular session. This kind of legislating is what keeps me up at night.

More and more we’re hearing about what may or may not be done in a 2010 lame duck session. So concerned is the House GOP that Minority Leader John Boehner (R, OH) has already warned the Democrat leadership to

“guarantee — right now — that they will not bring members back for a ‘sour grapes’ session after the election.” A little bit of early chicken counting, I guess.

For their part, Democrat leaders have said any lame duck session will be used to take care of minor unfinished business. But the GOP is beating the drum out on the hustings that the Democrats will use the session to ram through massive spending bills, cap-and-trade energy policy and gosh only knows what else.

The zeal to legislate will be directly proportional to the number of seats won or lost in the election. At the same time, last I looked, it still takes two chambers to enact legislation, and the Senate will likely be no more efficient during a lame duck that it is right now.

It would also be a colossal misstep — and a significant disservice to the public — if either party were to use and abuse a lame duck session to purely political ends. If, as they fervently hope, the GOP takes control of the House going into the 112th Session of Congress, I simply cannot believe House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) would want as her speaker’s legacy a “revenge” agenda of legislation. Nor do I think Boehner is paranoid enough to block bills simply because he’s the new big kid on the block.

So, friends, I ask that you say a few good words in hopes that should we go into lame duck session, cool heads will prevail, folks will do the “right thing,” members will remember the messages sent by the voters back home, and we will emerge on the other side without having to anticipate the opening session of the 112th Congress undoing a whole lot of bad legislation.

(My colleague just read this and said, “You really are a round-headed midwesterner, aren’t you?”)

Why no food safety bill?

I’ve been working on the Senate food safety bill forever, or so it seems. It’s a good bill as such things go, far more pragmatic than its House counterpart. The question nagging every stakeholder in the food safety debate is this: Why hasn’t this bill moved?

As long as I’ve been a lobbyist, I’ve always marveled at the “priority-setting process” of chamber leadership during an election year, and it matters not one whit whether it’s a D or an R that follows the member’s name. It seems folks would rather do political battle and bang their collective head against a wall rather than do what’s doable first, tackling the ugly bills later.

That’s the case with the Senate’s food safety bill. This is one of those extremely rare pieces of legislation enjoying not only bipartisan support — thank you, Sen. Dick Durbin (D, IL) and Sen. Richard Burr (R, NC) — but which also enjoys the support of just about all stakeholders in the FDA regulatory process, including consumer advocates. But so frustrated are these constituents, they’ve now taken to running ads in Capitol Hill publications, urging, nay begging Congress to complete its work on food safety.

This bill was completed by committee last November.  Sen. Tom Harkin (D, IA), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee, shepherded a good bill through his committee, tweaking it as he went along, protecting the good work of the bipartisan gang who drafted the bill, and the resulting legislation is arguably a better bill.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) is Harkin’s big headache right now, arguing the food safety bill should be the vehicle by which BPA, a chemical used in can liners and in plastics manufacture, should be banned by FDA. She’s so far refused to settle for anything short of a full ban — though there’s talk she’s mulling over a couple of options — even though even the hyper-precautionary European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has opted not to whack BPA until it wades through the oceans of science surrounding the issues of the chemical and its toxicity.  Feinstein’s refusal so far to back off her BPA ban language threatens stakeholder support for the bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV), rather than brokering a deal between Feinstein and Harkin, continues to do partisan battle with his GOP colleagues over climate change/cap-and-trade, financial reregulation and extension of much-needed tax breaks for things like small business research and development and biofuels development and on and on.  Minority leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R, KY) is helping Reid dig a very deep trench between the two parties, one which is becoming so wide some speculate it cannot be bridged. This is not the best use of Senate time or political capital.

Food safety reform was a priority for this Congress, but attention was paid only in the wake of a major food recall.  If the goal is to avoid these recalls, then passing the bill would seem the next logical step.  President Obama last week laid out the concrete achievements of his Food Safety Working Group, an effort which has brought increased coordination and cooperation to a heretofore somewhat fragmented federal food safety system. But the administrative changes can only go so far. There’s needed new authority in the food safety legislation that will make a good system better.

From a purely political standpoint, Reid and McConnell can both declare victory with passage of food safety, both can deliver to their parties’ reelection efforts a palpable “win” and both can use enactment as evidence the system is not as broken as some suggest.

For stakeholders, most will not throw themselves on the floor kicking and screaming if no food safety legislation passes.  They can live with an FDA system as it now exists. They’ll suit up for next session’s legislative battles.  But contrary to popular belief, where benefit is demonstrated and a practical approach is embraced, industry will support — and does support — smart modernization of FDA authority. 

There’s increasing talk food safety will be done during the post-election lame duck session. This is wrong-headed. Too much mischief goes on during lame duck sessions, as retiring or defeated members chase their legacy legislation, the media attention and the magnifying glass of reelection are significantly less, and some inevitably try and seize the opportunity to get done during lame duck what couldn’t or shouldn’t have been done during regular business fully believing no one will notice or, my personal favorite when it comes to political philosophies, “the public has a short attention span.”

The pressure is off during a lame duck, and in the case of legislation of all stripes, pressure to do the right thing is a something devoutly to be wished.

Perhaps this is a situation where our lawmakers are too close to see the options. If that’s the case, then I suggest these folks step back and identify what’s necessary and doable in the remaining weeks of this session.

An ag advisor in the White House — finally

The Obama Administration did a very good thing this week when the President ended nearly 18 months of indecision and named someone to fill the legally mandated ag/food advisor slot on his policy staff.  David Lazarus, currently a senior advisor to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, got the nod, and, to my mind, the selection makes this a two-fer for the Prez.

There’s been a lot of low-key grumbling for the past 18 months over President Obama’s failure to fill the ag slot on the White House Domestic Policy Council staff, a job mandated by Congress.  For most in conventional agriculture, the President’s seeming indifference to filling the slot is seen as the most obvious symbol of how low agriculture ranks on this Administration’s priority list — unless your definition of agriculture is organic, small, local and holistic.

Lazarus moves to the White House on Monday, July 12. He’s technically a detailee, meaning USDA continues to pay his salary, but in his new gig, he operates as the senior policy advisor to the President for rural affairs and agriculture. While Vilsack may have a friend and former trusted advisor in that slot, the job reports directly to Melody Barnes, director of the Domestic Policy Council.

Well-respected for being intelligent, analytical, quick on the uptake and pragmatic in his policy work, Lazarus went from a total unknown in the backroom of Sen. Richard Durbin’s (D, IL) office, to Durbin’s ag legislative assistant when the Senator was elevated to majority whip. Almost immediately, Lazarus handled the melamine in dog food issue and the resulting law, but won his stripes as the chief staff architect for Durbin’s bipartisan comprehensive food safety bill, S. 510, a bill enjoying producer, food industry and consumer support, an almost impossible hat trick in this town.

He went on to the number two slot on Obama’s rural outreach campaign team, moved to the Obama transition team after the election, and was one of the first staffers to join Vilsack when he got the nod to be secretary. In his role as special assistant and senior advisor, Lazarus has been the food safety go-to guy in the “office of the secretary” — we’re not allowed to call Room 201 “the cage” any more — and has been the lead Vilsack staffer on Obama’s interagency Food Safety Working Group.

Lazarus has tough shoes to fill, being the first Obama appointee in the ag advisor slot.  During the eight years of the Bush Administration, former USDA Deputy Secretary Chuck Conner, a long-time Capitol Hill and Washington veteran, held the job of special assistant to the president for food, ag and trade. When Conner went to USDA, he was followed by Mike Sommers, former personal office chief of staff for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R, OH), and now Boehner’s number two man in the GOP leader’s office. The last of the Bush special assistants was Hunter Moorhead, a long-time lieutenant to former Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Sen. Thad Cochran (R, MS).  All three knew agriculture from farm to fork.

Lazarus will do just fine. As the Farm Bill discussions ramp up, he’s going to be a very popular guy, particularly if this President keeps talking about local marketing networks and broadband access rather than keeping farmers solvent.

Ohio, HSUS and the “Deal”

Commentary.

Since the surprising announcement late last week that Ohio farmers and ranchers cut a deal with the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) over the future of various production practices in Ohio to avoid a costly and bitter ballot battle come November, my inbox has been stuffed with emails, most of which can be summed up in five words: “Is this a good thing?”

I’ve pondered the question for the last few days, not wanting to knee jerk in my response to the why’s and wherefore’s of the Ohio deal, but it basically comes down to this: It all depends on whether you live in Ohio or not. However, the overall implications of the Ohio deal are manifest and can’t be ignored.

As a politician of sorts, I’ve learned there are basic truths to any political battle, essentially three truisms which can’t be ignored: All politics is local; all politics is the art of the possible, and a compromise is something defined by general ambivalence on both sides once the deal is done.

There are several factors I assume as an educated observer on the outside looking in at the Ohio deal. On the local politics front, the fact Gov. Ted Strickland’s office was intimately involved in the deal-making speaks volumes. Obviously Strickland, facing a dicey reelection bid this November, retained the same strategy he did in 2009 when he endorsed the Ohio Farm Bureau’s Livestock Standards Board referendum question, that being, keep an ugly, emotional animal rights issue off the ballot. Why? Because such issues tend to draw single-minded voters, those who are often deaf and blind to other candidates’ messages, folks who are determined to beat back the question and who then reflexively pull that voting booth lever for the folks who support their fervor.

So, Strickland wanted the animal rights question as far from this fall’s ballot as possible, having learned one victory does not win the war and that he’d seriously underestimated the tenacity and ego of the animal rights movement. I’m not even going to second guess the good aggies of Ohio because I only guess at the industry factors in play when looking at November, as in “Can we afford another battle?,” and I have no clue what the implications of saying “no” to the governor and his allies or the deal might have been.

My gut analysis is that when it comes to what was politically possible in Ohio, neither the farmers nor HSUS had a lock on the outcome of a fall ballot issue. Are voters tired of the issue? Would they remain loyal to the farmers? What would it cost? The farmers are still paying the emotional, political and financial bills from the last statewide ballot campaign, and maintaining the level of support they had in 2009 is tough. HSUS had serious problems gathering enough signatures and had been beaten soundly in the state just a year before. Another political adage: When you’ve got the votes, you don’t compromise.

So who “won?” This is where the ambivalence of compromise kicks in. On points, I give it to the aggies, but not by much. The so-called restrictions are based on developments already on track in Ohio or soon to be. Veal stalls banned by 20017? The American Veal Assn. (AVA) announced that deadline three years ago. No new gestation stall permits after the end of the year, and all gestation stalls gone by 2025? You do the math on installations by year’s end, and let me know where we’ll all be in 15 years. No new caged layer permits? Ohio is already the second largest egg producer, and there’s no phase-out deadline on cages, so the only ones who care are those who were looking to 2011 to maybe expand their cage production. “Downer” transport? Already in place by industry practice and USDA regulation.

HSUS gets to lobby for cockfighting penalties, so-called “puppy mill” regs, and a ban on exotic pet ownership. But I can tell you with 99% surety the goal of HSUS in this negotiation had less to do with production practices and everything to do with saving face, and hopefully, leveraging the credibility of being an official player at the table. HSUS is feeling the acute sting of attacks from non-ag interests that point out in not-so-subtle fashion it is not a hands-on animal care group, but rather a very wealthy political lobby. This does not sit well, generally, with check-writing donors looking for real fixes to real local problems, not campaign rhetoric.

In his “Humane Nation” column posted late this week, HSUS President Wayne Pacelle kicked into serious lemonade-making mode once handed the lemons in Ohio. He calls the Ohio deal a “landmark” outcome for the animal rights movement – “It is in my mind, an agreement…(that is) the single biggest animal welfare package I’ve seen in our movement.”

He also reveals an political epiphany; we are blessed by the emergence of St. Wayne of Pacelle. He is, all of a sudden, extolling the virtue of Strickland’s “interest” in seeing a deal cut, but then rambles on about “no political winners or losers…everybody was a winner” because the battle royal in November was avoided. “(We) began to see each other as sincerely minded people,” Pacelle says, but also acknowledges that as a movement “if we do not sit down with our adversaries… we will never succeed.” Bless you, Wayne, for your enlightenment.

HSUS encounters with state aggies over time – initial or final – are hallmarked by ultimatums, so well described by one farm leader as an “our-way-or-the-highway” kind of “discussion.” Let us never forget, HSUS religiously believes it holds a patent on true compassion and sensitivity. The following are the realities of the “deal:”

Bad news for Gov. Strickland – HSUS ain’t going away any time soon. “It (the deal) represents a pathway forward for much stronger animal welfare in a state that has lagged badly on this set of issues. All parties also recognize that it is not the end of the discussion, but the beginning.”

Bad news for folks who believe HSUS will operative objectively. “At times, we must pursue such campaigns when lawmakers or industry slam the door in our face and reject the common good.”

And does HSUS think better of us for being “sincerely-minded people?” “Ultimately, we will need them (farmers and ranchers) to view animals in a more sensitive way if we are going to achieve our goals.”

Understand, HSUS operates on its own definitions of what is acceptable, when honest disagreement equals door slamming, and what, ultimately, constitutes viewing food production is “in a more sensitive way,” For HSUS, it all comes down to “achieving our goals.”

As the farmer said, you cut through all the palaver, it’s still “our way or the highway.”

Save those dollars, but spend wisely

Commentary

I heard yet again this week that another food group in DC is trying to gin up financial support for a “pro-ag” consumer campaign. The “ask?” A pot load of money up front to “do the necessary consumer research,” and a commitment of up to $30 million a year — yes, you read that correctly — to keep priming the ag promotion pump.

I suppose it was inevitable a cottage industry of consultants, media companies, communications firms and the like would spring up around the collective food and agricultural angst over animal rights and other anti-technology forces arrayed against us. I’m hoping folks are smart enough or conservative enough in their spending not to fall for anyone who says they’ve got the silver bullet for this challenge and all you have to do is write a big ol’ check to make the issue go away.

The good news: We’ve got more energy and more attention being paid to those folks who demand we return to 1930s farming and ranching than in my memory. Further, every check-off group, every processing organization worth its salt and every food company has more than enough research — all saying the same thing — than we need to develop a game plan to beat the buggers back.

The bad news: We’re running in circles, talking to ourselves about how bad everything is/will be. We’re still hamstrung by silly commodity rivalries, association competitions and our own egos. We’re not using the tools we’ve already paid for and coordinating our messaging to consumers, DC and local politicians and other folks who can significantly mess with our livelihoods if left ignorant.  Back in the 1990s, what I just described was the weakness of the activists; today’s it’s our problem.

I’ve seen most of the consumer research done over the last 20 years to tell you it all pretty much says the same thing: Consumers deserve and demand sufficient openness and information — not the nitty gritty details of day-to-day production, but relevant information — about food production, animal care and ethical behavior to be reassured that the trust they have for folk down on the farm is justified.

This does not take a new massive, multi-million education program. It takes the creative side of our industry to take the dollars we pay them and come up with clever, catchy ways of reminding consumers there are real live, breathing, caring, professional people who produce their food. This is called putting a face on the process, not just the product.

The California dairy industry is doing it — honest-to-gosh dairy farmers talking to consumers about where milk and other dairy products come from, and the ethics of the folks who husband the animals. Ohio farmers and ranchers are doing it. Just go to the Ohio Farm Bureau’s website.

The beauty here? The message is the same, but it’s being multiplied by different messengers with their own spin. A single loud message about “love the farmer” will not have the impact as multiple consistent messages from multiple sources.

The answer to the “consumer education” challenge is not to throw millions of new, hard-to-come-by dollars at it with new and short-term advertising programs, but to take the tools we already have, including current check-off product promotion/advertising programs, and rejigger them to give the producer and his/her family consistent equal billing with the product. This does not mean ignoring product sales; this means enhancing product sales through creating a relationship between the consumer and the producer.

No one sympathizes with a big corporation, but folks in the city definitely sympathize with their cousins in the country. 

The key to rebuilding consumer trust and confidence is to reintroduce the city folks to the rural folks. We let them get away from us; it’s time to bring them back.

The Senate, EPA and a bad move

Commentary. I watched the Senate this week sink once again into myopic partisanship and bloviating as the chamber rejected Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R, AK) resolution that would have stopped EPA from moving ahead on the reg writing connected to its so-called “endangerment finding,” an agency decree that greenhouse gas emissions pose an imminent threat to the health of man and animals.

The Murkowski resolution would have invoked congressional authority to stop an agency’s rulemaking if it’s clear that rulemaking was badly drawn or would have a disporportionate negative impact on regulated industry with no appreciable benefit. The EPA rulemaking certainly fits that bill.

On its face, however, the EPA rulemaking would seem to make sense. Belching smokestacks, unseen gases and vapors, all are the stuff of urban nightmare. However, the irony here is that EPA didn’t decide to move on regulating so-called greenhouse gases until the Senate deadlocked on passing a climate change bill. The White House, which has repeatedly and publicly said it prefers Congress act instead of EPA, figured a little scary rulemaking — “the Supreme Court made us do it” –  might provide just the incentive the Senate needs to get its collective head out of the climate change sand and pass a bill similar to the heavy-handed legislation approved in the House.

But now those tables are turned. There are at least three different Senate approaches to how to “control” climate change, none of which have the 60 votes to pass the Senate; everyone hates the House bill as poorly thought-out and having a serious negative impact on rural communities and agriculture, so now Congress is saying EPA is the last best hope to stop the disintegration of the planet.

What really teed me off during the debate were those who abandoned rational thought and opposed Murkowski’s resolution on almost purely political and emotional grounds. President Obama wants it, so we’ll do it, seems to be the automatic political reaction of many in congressional leadership. Those who successfully killed the Murkowski resolution, which would have no impact on EPA’s enforcement of the Clean Air Act or its other regulatory responsibilities, continually tied putting the brakes on EPA’s ill-conceived emissions rulemaking to the BP Gulf oil spill, to “Big Oil” and alleged that those who supported Murkowski’s effort — including 47 of their colleagues — simply wanted a green light to continue to polluting, thereby endangering “our children and grandchildren.”

I love it when Senators stand up — as Sen. Barbara Boxer (D, CA) did — and acknowledge “we’re not scientists,” yet go on to tout the “science” of global warming as though they understand it.  Anyone who’s read a newspaper in the last six months knows the international science of global warming is, at best, questionable as it’s been shown to be selectively chosen to support the view that man is giddily polluting the planet for profit and the devil take the hindmost. At one point, Boxer actually held up a list on the floor of admirals who supported stopping the Murkowski resolution. I felt better knowing that those whose job it is to direct naval vessels had weighed in on the issue.

What was perhaps the saddest part of the debate was how Boxer, who represents one of the largest agricultural states in the Union, and her allies completely ignored the more than 540 organizations of various stripes who supported Murkowski. Murkowski pointed out during her floor time that her list of supporters included most of agriculture and food production, a significant sector when it comes to our current quality of life and the future of our offspring.

Murkowski argued the resolution was not about the science of global warming, but “how we respond to the science.” Sen. John Rockefeller (D, WV), who broke with his party and supported Murkowski, said, “EPA regulation is not the answer,” explaining EPA doesn’t understand the economic needs of the country, has no way to deploy new technologies to reach the same goals, and no obligation to protect “the hard working people of West Virginia or the nation.”

Sen. Susan Collins (R, ME) crystalized the issue when she said she has serious concerns about “unelected government officials at the EPA taking on this complicated issue instead of Congress.”

Perhaps the truest description of what happened this week — which I see as the Senate irresponsibly ignoring its job — was inadvertently provided by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I, CT), a Murkowski opponent who joined with Sen. John Kerry (D, MA) to try and cobble together a Senate climate change bill that passes the smell test — and so far has failed.

“This looks an awful lot to me like trying to impose political judgments on scientific judgments — and that is wrong.”

Amen, brother.

Who should get the dollars?

Commentary

As a former reporter/editor, the first thing I look for in public forums is balance. Upside, downside, no side, it’s all important when positing change.

This week’s “National Summit on Rural America” hosted by USDA is one of those forums I would expect would start at the farm level in its debate, working its way back to the overall economic health of rural communities.  After all, the community depends on the success of its residents, was my first thought.

But apparently this Administration is coming at the issue of rural economic health from the opposite direction, namely an assumption that rural communities will not remain economically viable if they rely exclusively on farming and ranching to keep them afloat.

The Obama Administration, through USDA, is touting no less than a reinvention of how the government views revitalization of our non-urban communities. It points to broadband access, bioenergy, infrastructure investment and more federal dollars for hospitals, colleges and other services we in cities take for granted. This, it contends, will solidify rural America’s economic base.

From my aggie perch, I read the various press releases cranked out post-summit and was disappointed yet again there is only passing reference to maintaining farming and ranching’s economic viability through creative thinking of what it means to have a true “income safety net.”  But I have to confess, from a 30,000-foot level, the Administration may have something, but it must tread very carefully.

Not everyone in “rural America” — and I must confess I have no clue how the Obama White House defines the term — is a farmer or rancher or a member of a farm or ranch family. However, I’ll bet the farm that most of the residents of small towns across this country are only one or two steps removed from production agriculture.

What the Obama Administration wants to do is needed, don’t get me wrong. But shotgunning money into rural America.  Dollars cannot be funneled into cities with the assumption that rural communities will take care of themselves or benefit from kind of trickle down effect. However, “incentives” of the kind this White House contemplates do not discriminate, meaning you almost have to be careful of what you wish for.

I guess in a way I’m offering a kind of watered down “bedroom community” warning to Secretary Vilsack a la Rep. Frank Lucas (R, OK) at the first House Ag Committee hearing on the 2012 Farm Bill. Without focus and direction, federal dollars targeted to rural communities may, in fact, backfire on USDA. How? By providing economic incentives that move these communities away from food production and recreate these towns and small cities as mini-urban centers.

This scheme, if not well and truly thought out, actually runs the risk of providing exactly the “excuse” some folks need to get out of the crap game that is farming and ranching.  Assuming everyone on a farm wants or needs a “town job” — as some have criticized this USDA for thinking — and tossing federal dollars out there to create those jobs without either targeting those dollars to bolster the food production system or providing incentives to maintain farm independence, runs a serious risk of accelerating consolidation of farming and ranching. The math is simple: If I can sell my acres to my neighbor or a nearby family corporation, and the spouse and I and the kids can get jobs in town that assure us of a steady, healthy income, would I embrace the “love of farming” or would I go with economic security?

The warning to USDA: Measure twice, cut once, and be very careful of what you wish for — you may get it.

Silence = Guilt

Commentary.

I’m breaking a cardinal rule of journalism as I write this, namely, when angry or upset with a situation, take a few minutes to calm down before you start banging on a keyboard.  But in this case, I can’t.  I just watched the Mercy for Animals (MFA)undercover video allegedly filmed at an Ohio dairy. The images therein are horrific.

Several thoughts are ricocheting around in my head. The first is that all of animal agriculture must loudly and publicly condemn this episode. Such barbarity cannot be tolerated and to remain silent is akin to abetting the wonton cruelty shown in the video. The second thought is this: How long did MFA wait before acting on this video? Reports are MFA “documented” this horror for a month before releasing the video. Then the political side of my brain automatically goes to the guarantee the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) will try and exploit this to its own political ends, and lastly, my sheer frustration such video will be used to paint all farmers and ranchers as villains and worse.

While I’m a big believer in innocent until proven guilty — experience tells us the video must first be authenticated — if the alleged perpetrator of the acts portrayed in the video is found guilty by a court of law, then the full force of the law must be brought to bear. But I’m also infuriated by the actions or inaction of the animal rights movement, starting with HSUS and its Hallmark video, to this latest example. How can any group which calls itself “humane” sit on any evidence of cruelty for a month, or in the case of HSUS, nearly 90 days, allowing the mistreatment continue? Is the publicity and political value of such video more important than the alleged suffering of the animals? Apparently. But why isn’t isn’t the failure to act considered complicity? Where at least is the moral obligation to act immediately? Why are regulators and law enforcement timid in pursuing this?

HSUS is exploiting this video, saying the situation depicted is due to the “anemic state of Ohio’s anti-cruelty laws,” and then automatically pitches its statewide ballot initiative to try and blunt the success of the Ohio Livestock Standards Board. This is typical and sad.

But ultimately, the responsibility is ours, and by “ours” I mean everyone even remotely involved in animal agriculture. We have the same moral obligation to report abuse, neglect or illegal actions. We cannot and must not tolerate bad actors, and that includes taking every action at our disposal to intervene, including notifying authorities when all else fails. American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) President Bob Stallman said it best: “Farmers and ranchers know it is their responsibility to do everything in their power to prevent abuse…and as member of the ag community, they know they are responsible to stop any such actions when brought to their attention — including alerting appropriate law enforcement officials.”

Every producer, processor and transporter, no matter how large or small, must ensure that every breathing human working with live animals understands the moral, ethical, legal and economic obligations inherent in such work. Hiring temporary or day labor is no excuse. If they work for you, they must be trained in proper animal handling and treatment. No exceptions, no excuses. And if you don’t fulfill this responsibility, then you can be accused of being at least morally as guilty as the person who commits the abuse.

The episodes in the MFA video are in no way representative of anything I know in animal ag, and I question the sanity of anyone who believes differently. And for any animal rights group to claim such cruelty is routine would be akin to me saying anyone who’s a member of any animal rights, protection or welfare group is some kind of bomb throwing, fire-setting extremist simply because a precious few activists have chosen to embrace those tactics.

I am asked repeatedly at speeches and presenations, “What do we do about the bad actors?” It’s simple. If you know they’re bad actors, then intervene, individually or get your organization involved. If the bad actor won’t listen, make sure they understand the legal consequences of their deafness.

Again, Stallman said it best: “People who abuse farm animals don’t deserve a spot in the ag community.”

Throw some of the yahoos out

Commentary

This past Tuesday’s primary election outcome certainly reinforced the anti-incumbent feeling in the hinterlands. Please take note I did not say “anti-Democrat” sentiment, because the rank-and-file voting population’s frustration, anger and angst with Congress is pretty much the only truly bipartisan energy field out there, and folks are signaling they’re fed up with all things Washington.

At this point in time, it appears the GOP has a shot at taking back the House, but little chance of regaining the Senate, though the margin will narrow to almost a 50-50 split. The success of these predictions, based upon the hard work of a lot of real election analysts is predicated on both Democrats and Republicans waking up to the fact they’ve underestimated if not wholesale ignored their constituents for too long. Turns out voters’ collective memory is not that short, at least not as short as some incumbents would hope.

However, taking down Sen. Arlen Specter (D,PA)and Rand Paul’s bigger-than-expected win for the tea party in Kentucky does not a trend make. Republicans lost the 12th District in Pennsylvania, a swing district by any calculation, and it’s the third special election opportunity the GOP has squandered. The GOP did pick up Hawaii’s 1st District, but that had more to do with schoolyard bickering between the Democrats in the race than it did with shrewd GOP strategy and politicking.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D, AR) survived her three-way primary race, only to now head into a run-off in three week’s time. Former GOP Rep. John Boozman won 53% of the vote in his multi-candidate primary, and gets a three-week head start on the general election.

I become nervous when frustration and anger at Washington, DC business-as-usual manifests itself in blindness. Blindness to the cold, hard reality of getting candidates elected who can actually do the job and represent the folks who put them there. It’s not necessarily as difficult to take down a sitting member of Congress in a primary as it is to field a novice candidate in hopes of taking a general election, and some of our tea party folks are missing the forest for the trees this season.

While “throw the bastards out” is a noble sentiment, you need to be selective when identifying targets. Change for just the sake of change is seldom good. By tossing out good, solid representation because he/she is an incumbent and may have cast a vote or two you didn’t like is to lose strong voices, experience, seniority, influence and the ability to deliver on the needs of your district or state.

A good example is the failure of the Utah Republican Party to renominate Sen. Robert Bennett. Perhaps it’s Bennett’s fault for not more loudly and consistently declaring his successes on behalf of the state, but Bennett’s loss will be felt deeply in the Senate. He’s by all reports one of the few breathing members of the Senate who truly understood how a financial crisis can be solved and members from both sides listened to the experienced businessman explain how to fix the economy without taking out whole sectors of industry with friendly fire. His expertise will be sorely missed.  And if the venerable Sen. Orrin Hatch (R, UT) is subjected to the same treatment when he’s up in 2012, the Utah deserves what it gets, namely a back bench in all debates.

The potential loss of Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D, AR) would be another serious mistake. Critics of Lincoln’s campaigning tell me she’s just too nice, expecting her record will speak for her, with the good things she’s done outweighing some of the less good things she’s done. Tuesday was her wake up call. She’s learned this is not the case, and with anti-incumbent fever running high in Arkansas, she’s got to take the gloves off, ask for help, and run with a fervor like never before. Arkansas loses, in fact, the whole South loses if Lincoln doesn’t come back.

Both sides suffer from the same myopia and simplistic thinking. It’s not enough to jump up and down and scream, “I’m not like them, I’m not like them” while pointing to the good old boy network that is Congress, gender notwithstanding. Messages must be clear and based upon what your voters want/need, not your personal philosophy of what you’d do if you were king for a day. Your positions must be thoughtfully communicated and you must run as if your life dependeds on your winning, whether incumbent or challenger.

Leadership on both sides of the aisle needs to understand folks truly want to vote “for” someone, not necessarily “against” someone else. And for the candidates, here’s a clue:  It’s about whom you represent first and foremost, and your party affiliation dead last.

Next Page »