|
|
 
|
Local control is a value worth preserving; Other news (Friday, March 18, 2005 -- CropChoice news) -- 1. Local Control is a Value Worth Preserving 1. Local Control is a Value Worth Preserving By Russ Kremer, Missouri Farmers Union
March 15, 2005 There are lots of reasons why I choose to be active in the effort to
create a positive future for family farmers and rural communities. At
the root of it all is a value system that has helped my family,
neighbors and friends enjoy a good quality of life in rural Missouri.
Rural people tend to believe in neighbors helping neighbors, hard work,
strong families and community-based solutions to the challenges we face. With this value system in place, many rural Missouri legislators often
speak in favor of "local control" for every issue--of schools, of taxes,
of natural resources. But there is one issue where the rural legislators
are compromising their traditional local control position: the ability
of counties to pass health ordinances to protect their citizens from the
health risks created by ultra large livestock operations, classified as
concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Unlike family farmers who have traditionally raised livestock in small
herds spread out across the state, CAFOs concentrate tens of thousands
of animals and their manure in a small area. CAFOs have a history of
manure management problems that lead to polluting rivers and streams,
filling the air with harmful gases and driving down the property values
of people who live near these facilities. Studies have pointed out that
Missouri counties that host the highest number of CAFO's also have the
highest deterioration rates for child well being. Due to these manure
management problems, Missouri has worked out a system of CAFO rules that
sets a floor of environmental regulations that CAFOs must obey under
state law. These standards only apply to the biggest 438 livestock
operations in the state. The rest of Missouri's 106,000 farmers, more
than 99%, are not impacted by these regulations at all. Nine Missouri counties have taken the step of tightening up CAFO rules
at the county level in order to protect their citizens from the
documented health risks of CAFOs, primarily nervous and respiratory
system concerns. By passing county health ordinances these nine counties
are pro-actively looking out for farmers and rural people who live near
the manure of thousands of pigs, cows, chickens or turkeys. The right to
pass county health ordinances is supported by the Missouri Association
of Counties (that represents Missouri's County Commissioners), the
Missouri Attorney General and has been upheld by the Missouri Supreme
Court. County health ordinance rights has been under attack for the past two
years, but a group of family farmers and other people concerned about
healthy rural communities have fought off these attacks. Last week, the
special interest CAFO supporters finally got their way in the Missouri
Senate when they voted 21 to 10 to take away counties' rights to have
these health ordinances. Despite all of the talk about "supporting local
control," it seems that many Senators are able to set their values aside
when it comes to public health and environmental issues. The bill will
be heard on the house floor this week. We've got to ask ourselves how sacrificing our local public health rules
can benefit rural Missouri? Are we interested in moving toward a state
that de-regulates itself to welcome the hazardous waste and landfills
that nobody else wants? Is it worth giving up our quality of life to
allow polluters to expand their operations in the state? If our legislators in Jefferson City are interested in this type of
economic development plan, they should certainly allow counties the
right to determine their own future and opt out of this kind of
"pollution-friendly" approach. Local control protects the rights of
communities to have a say in their own future. With state-level
protections over our rural quality-of-life being dismantled in the state
legislature, local control is not a value we can afford to set aside. Missouri Farmers Union's mission is to protect and enhance the economic
interests and way of life of family farmers and ranchers and the rural
communities they represent. MFU is the true advocacy organization
representing family farms and rural communities. For more information or
to join, go to http://www.missourifarmersunion.org . Contact Russ Kremer at
573-659-4787 or russmfu@earthlink.net.
2. U.S. farm trade under pressure Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA), March 14, 2005, Monday WASHINGTON--Wander down the aisles of most American grocery stores and you'll find a
surprising choice of foods from foreign countries - ripe blackberries from
Mexico, capers from Morocco, hearts of palm from Costa Rica, sweet peppers
from South Africa. The list goes on. While all these foreign imports may be a boon for consumers, they're one
reason the once-huge US agricultural trade surplus is rapidly deflating.
It's down from $ 9.6 billion just last year to only a projected $ 1 billion
in 2005, raising the possibility of a deficit in the future. How could the world's breadbasket be staggering when it comes to a
traditional strength like the American farm? The question comes at an
awkward moment as overall US trade deficits hit record highs of more than $
600 billion a year. The answer is a culinary tale involving changing consumer tastes, expanding
global farm output, and the subsidies governments offer a politically
sensitive industry. "We're not doing enough to combat [foreign] protectionism," says Rep. Bob
Goodlatte (R) of Virginia, chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture.
He says other countries are raising barriers that make it harder for
American farmers to sell their products abroad. At home, American shoppers also share the blame. People enjoy - and buy -
lots of foreign foods. "Our economy is growing, incomes are rising," says
Parr Rosson, director of the Center for North American Studies at Texas A&M
University. "As a consequence our imports have risen ... particularly in
fruits and vegetables we like to have fresh year-round." Last year, $ 62.3 billion in farm exports left the US, a number forecast to
drop to $ 59 billion in 2005. Conversely, $ 52.7 billion in imports arrived
in 2004 and are predicted to be up to $ 58 billion this year. Representative Goodlatte runs through a list of reasons. First, there are tariffs. The "United States imposes tariffs on food coming
to our country that average 12 percent. The worldwide average is 62
percent." Second, developed countries, particularly Japan and the European Union,
subsidize their farmers at far higher levels than America. "Even though our
agricultural production is higher and our population is lower, we actually
have a trade deficit with Europe in agriculture, in part because of all
these tariffs and subsidies," he says. While subsidies can distort commerce, many experts see trade in general as
beneficial. "If we didn't import oil, what do you think we'd be paying for
oil today?" asks Mr. Rosson at Texas A&M. "You need to think of imports [as]
... sending a signal to domestic industry they need to compete or become
more productive." One agricultural industry -cheese - has long run an export deficit, but the
industry insists it hasn't hurt them. "We have a healthy relationship with
[foreign cheese makers]... They are the 'origin' cheeses. They've given the
American consumer their palette," says John Umhoefer, executive director of
the Wisconsin Cheese Makers Association in Madison. Still, the rapid decline in the US dollar relative to other currencies
should be boosting US exports and dampening imports. Why doesn't that
happen? Rosson says, "Companies make deals well in advance ... and as long
as that pipeline is full ... it takes [a year to 18 months] for that change
to ripple through the system." Gary Adams, chief economist with the National Cotton Council of America in
Memphis, Tenn., offers another take: "As the dollar weakens or
depreciates,... that does tend to support our ability to export... [B]ut one
other wrinkle is if China is your destination for your product, then
movement of your dollar isn't affecting things so much because China's
[currency] is pegged to the US dollar." The top three destinations for raw US cotton fiber are Mexico, China, and
Turkey. The cotton industry has been shipping more and more of its raw fiber
out of the country as US mills close. America's "biggest complaint" is over non-tariff trade barriers, Goodlatte
says. The European Union "block[s] some of our major exports on what we think are
unscientific and spurious reasons that really you'd have to think of as more
protectionist than based on science." Prime examples are genetically
modified corn and soybeans, he says. The farmers' own representatives in Washington - the American Farm Bureau
Federation - don't seem as concerned. "The things that we're importing tend
not to compete with what [we're] growing in the US," says Megan Provost,
trade economist with the federation. Still, American government policies could add new worries for farms. In
addition to its goal of reducing subsidies, especially for rice and cotton,
the Bush administration would move $ 300 million from the US foreign food
aid program to the US Agency for International Development. "This would
allow USAID to buy food products overseas for foreign aid, rather than from
US farmers," according to The Washington Times. Goodlatte says that would
breach a "contract" with US farmers. America, with 6 percent of the world's
population, some years provides 60 percent of the food aid, he adds.
3. Farmers Urge Energy Bill Approval During Visits to Capitol Hill Contact: Larry Mitchell (202) 835-0330 WASHINGTON March 14, 2005 -- A top energy regulator today called on Congress to pass electric reliability legislation this year. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) member Joseph T. Kelliher told family farmers that in the wake of the 2003 electricity blackout and continuing strains on the electric grid, failure to pass a bill will mean Congress must accept much of the responsibility if widespread blackouts happen in the future. So far, attempts to pass stand-alone reliability legislation have been unsuccessful and while electric utilities have been coordinating their efforts on a voluntary basis they have also called for mandatory standards to be put in place that will give the industry some certainty. Kelliher was speaking at the seventh Rural Energy Issues Conference organized by the Alliance for Rural America (ARA). During their visit to Washington, family farmers from all ARA member groups debated the energy and environmental challenges facing our nation, including those facing rural America. The conference was followed by a day of visits to Capitol Hill where farmers talked to their delegations about the need to pass the energy bill which includes an extension of the Production Tax Credit, creates a Renewable Fuel Standard and provides incentives to upgrade and expand the electric transmission grid. Farmers also want to see passage of a multi-emissions bill to improve the environment and bring certainty to electricity availability and affordability. These grassroots advocates are all participants in the Alliance for Rural America’s (ARA’s) Rural Energy Issues Conference. The ARA was established in 1997 to give the rural citizens a voice in energy and environmental debates in Washington as well as in local and state governments. ARA National Spokesperson, Larry Mitchell, said "Farmers and ranchers are once again coming to Washington to impress upon lawmakers the need to put aside partisan, geographic and other differences to pass an energy bill that will ease fuel and natural gas prices and protect energy reliability for rural America. Mitchell believes America’s farm and ranch families can help. "Renewable energy is growing quickly in rural America. Windpower is now seen as a prospective source of income for many farmers." However, Mitchell said ARA members will be reminding lawmakers that all types of energy need to be encouraged. "Without a bill we fear prices will just keep going up. When ARA members meet with their representatives today their message will be, ‘Rural America cannot wait any longer. We need an energy bill now,’" said Mitchell. The Alliance for Rural America's nine member organizations represent over 750,000 farmers and farm families. The ARA was formed in 1997 to represent the farm community on energy and environmental issues.
4. National Farmers Union: Do We Hafta Have CAFTA? For Immediate Release WASHINGTON (March 15, 2005) During a Capitol Hill news conference
today, National Farmers Union President Dave Frederickson voiced his strong
opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which the farm
leader believes would negatively impact U.S. farmers. "CAFTA resembles failed trade policies of the past that further encourage
a 'race to the bottom' for producer prices," Frederickson said. "This
agreement also fails to address major issues that distort fair trade such as
labor, environmental regulations and currency." Frederickson said the impact of CAFTA will be seen in more imports of sugar,
fruit, vegetables, ethanol and other commodities, while estimates of sizable
trade gains are "overly optimistic." "CAFTA proponents overestimate the agreement's potential benefits, often
ignoring the fact that nations included in CAFTA represent small populations
with low purchasing power," Frederickson said. "The CAFTA, and the U.S.
trade agenda as a whole, seems more inclined to negotiate with countries
that want increased access to U.S. markets rather than with countries
interested in buying more U.S. agricultural products, such as Cuba. "National Farmers Union supports trade that benefits agricultural producers in
all countries and cannot support agreements like the CAFTA that trade away
our agricultural markets for no visible returns to American farmers and
ranchers," the Farmers Union leader said. House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., Rep.
Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., Rep. Dennis Rehberg, R-Mont., and others joined
Frederickson in stating opposition to CAFTA today. During the news
conference, the leaders were flanked by farmers from across the country in
town this week to oppose CAFTA and advocate other rural issues. National Farmers Union is a general farm organization representing a quarter
of a million family farmers and ranchers nationwide. NFU serves its
membership by providing educational opportunities, supporting farmer-owned
cooperative development, and presenting the organization's policies to
lawmakers at the local, state and national levels.
5. Guatemalans protest trade pact Al Jazeera online, Monday 14 March 2005 Many are against the Central American Free Trade Agreement Thousands of Guatemalans have rallied across the country in a protest
against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) with the United
States. About 6000 people took part on Monday in different marches that converged on
the historical central part of Guatemala City where the National Congress is
located. Congress approved the treaty on Thursday. The protests were part of a national one-day strike against the treaty. Activists shouted slogans against the United States and against ruling party
legislators. Other activists gathered outside the US Embassy, and yet
another group marched on a highway to the Atlantic. There were similar protests across Guatemala with farmers blocking highways
leading to the borders with Mexico, El Salvador and Honduras. Presidential warning Guatemalan President Oscar Berger played down the protests and warned that
if blockades were set up, leaders would be arrested. He said CAFTA would be beneficial for Guatemala and especially would bring
in foreign investment. "When our producers get big dollars, we'll see if they stage a
demonstration," he said. Interior Minister Carlos Vielman warned that if blockades were not withdrawn
voluntarily, they would be forcibly dispersed. The Guatemalan Congress approved the seven-nation CAFTA by a 126-12 vote,
making Guatemala the third Central American country to ratify the treaty
after Honduras and El Salvador. Costa Rica, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic and the United States have yet
to ratify it. Source: Al Jazeera online 6.CAFTA Backers Gain Democratic Vote, But Lose GOP One From Congress Daily Freshman Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas today announced hissupport for the Central America Free Trade Agreement while Rep. Dennis Rehberg, R-Mont., said he would oppose it as the battle for votes to ratify the deal continued. Cuellar made his decision public during a speech to business supportersof the deal.
"He sees this as a big opportunity for economic developmentand people in his district to get job opportunities, a Cuellar spokeswoman said, noting that the includes border city ofLaredo, which would benefit economically from an increase trade.
Pro-CAFTA lobbyists are courting Democratic votes they will needsecure CAFTA passage House year. One Democrat likely beleader effort build support party is
Rep. James Moran Virginia, several although'sspokesman could not reached comment. A House Democratic aide said
there are now as many as 20 Democrats strongly leaning in favor of the
deal, but that would likely not be enough to offset Republican
defections and pass the deal.
Rehberg became one of those GOP defections. "CAFTA is bad for
Montana, unfair to Montana's sugar industry, and will ultimately hurt
the economy of eastern Montana," he said, adding that he had "spoken to
countless farmers, business owners and community leaders across Montana
since this accord was announced, and I can't remember any who support
it." One of the deal's strongest opponents -- the Billings-based
Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America --
is based in Rehberg's home state. It announced in January it opposes the
deal, saying it would lead to more beef imports from those countries
than it would exports of U.S. beef. House Agriculture ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., today
joined the National Farmers Union at an anti-CAFTA rally where he
predicted at least 190 Democrats would vote against it. Peterson said bilateral trade agreements "have been a disaster for
agriculture" because they have divided the agriculture community and
made it impossible to address problems in the agreements. Calman Cohen,
who leads the Business Coalition for U.S.-Central America Trade, said he
believed the House Ways and Means Committee would hold a hearing on the
pact in April in preparation for a vote by mid-year. The Senate Finance
Committee has scheduled a hearing April 6 on CAFTA, which includes five
Central American nations and the Dominican Republic. -- by Martin
Vaughan and Jerry Hagstrom
7. Globalization's Realities The Washington Post March 12, 2005 Saturday Sebastian Mallaby ["Making Globalization Work," op-ed, Feb. 28] finally
understands that the global race to the bottom in labor and environmental
standards is creating losers that endanger our world's future prosperity and
security. Unfortunately, his column deteriorated into a disconnected rant
attacking me and claiming that opposition to corporate-led globalization has
withered. Global justice activism, far from fading, has gone mainstream. Living with a
decade of globalization in the style of the World Trade Organization and the
North American Free Trade Agreement has generated many critics. Opposition to more-of-the-same globalization started in the developing world
because decades of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank imposing
these policies meant that more live in extreme poverty. The very countries
Mallaby says would benefit oppose a proposed expansion of NAFTA to 31
nations because they know Mexico's NAFTA record -- 1.5 million campesino
livelihoods lost and lower wages. Now, with a record U.S. trade deficit, median real wages at 1972 levels,
farm income crashed, trade tribunals ruling against U.S. laws and the
anguish of a growing job export crisis, many in Congress are also
reconsidering. In red and blue states alike, they see the pain of farmers
and workers and hear from local officials whose tax bases were gutted by the
loss of one in six manufacturing jobs during the NAFTA-WTO era. At issue is not whether to trade but what rules will govern the global
economy. The current rules limit governments' ability to deal with many
social, environmental and security challenges created by unfettered
globalization. The debate has moved beyond Mallaby's notion that the status quo is
successful or inevitable. With the engagement of leading economists and
policymakers worldwide, and, yes, me and Bono too, the debate has shifted
onto what changes are needed. My organization works internationally as part
of a thriving movement promoting alternatives to corporate globalization
because the status quo is unsustainable and a better world is possible. --Lori Wallach, The writer is director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. Sebastian Mallaby suggests that trade liberalization has achieved a "lasting
victory" over so-called globophobes. It's hard to know what victory Mallaby
is referring to. Is it the World Trade Organization talks, which fell apart
at the last ministerial meeting because of the well-understood damaging
impacts of globalization on poor countries? Is it the Free Trade Area of the
Americas talks, intractably stalemated over the same issues? Maybe he's
referring to the Central American Free Trade Agreement talks, even though
the Bush administration, despite Republican control of Congress, has yet to
put CAFTA forward for ratification because of the likely political backlash. A recent international survey found that nongovernmental organizations are
more trusted around the world than business and the media. It's no wonder
after hearing such disconnected rants from free-traders such as Mallaby. He would do well to listen more closely to the conflicts within the WTO and
over trade agreements pushing this extreme brand of trade liberalization.
The issues being raised by developing countries and U.S. farmers, workers
and small businesses are those that have been raised for the past decade:
the trade rules promoting this brand of globalization are rigged to favor
multinational corporations at the expense of working people. Mallaby's support for international institutions is laudable -- but these
institutions' effectiveness is predicated on an honest discussion about the
failures of our current "globalization." -- Ben Lilliston The writer is communications coordinator for the nonprofit Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy.
8. Analysis: Brazil aggressive with trade http://news.newkerala.com/world-news/?action=fullnews&id=81858 [World News]: By LES KJOS MIAMI, March 7 : The state of Florida won a
preliminary victory over Brazil in the international-trade arena last
week, but that's not likely to keep Brazil from continuing to stir up
controversy in the global economy. The South American country's economy grew by 5.2 percent last year, but
it is still using its agricultural might to work its way out of a huge
national debt -- and making some legal challenges in the process. Brazil also had talks last week in Washington in an effort to revive
prospects for the 34-nation Free Trade Association of the Americas. At the same time Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced the demise
of the idea, and Cuba complicated matters by showing interest in
becoming an associate partner of Mercosur, a trade group comprised of
Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. With all that going on, Brazil has been increasingly willing to try to
work its will on the international agricultural market - with mixed
results. Brazil lost a preliminary ruling to Florida citrus growers, who say they
are being harmed by the import of Brazilian orange juice at
less-than-fair market prices. The International Trade Commission has voted to continue to investigate
the Florida complaints against Brazilian producers of citrus concentrate. Andy LaVigne, executive vice president of Florida Citrus Mutual, said
the ruling was encouraging. "We have a very strong case, which warrants a thorough investigation by
both" the commission and the Commerce Department, LaVigne told The Miami
Herald. The decision must be ratified by the Commerce Department and seconded by
the trade commission for the campaign by Florida growers to be successful. Brazilian producers have denied they are selling the concentrates for
prices below the cost of production. The states of Florida and Sao Paulo are the two largest producers of
citrus concentrate in the world. Florida's complaint filed Dec. 27 charged "the industry is being injured
by steady importations of low-priced orange juice in the market over the
past two years." The complaint said hurricanes that hit Florida and other circumstances
did not increase the bulk price of orange juice as they should have. Analysts note that happened despite one of the highest tariff rates of
any import into the United States. Matthew T.McGrath, an attorney for the Florida growers, said the
decision would "make the Brazilians aware that their pricing was being
monitored by the Commerce Department.We are looking for a better return
for the growers." Despite the disagreement over citrus, Florida is cozying up to its Latin
American trading partner by holding a business conference Thursday and
Friday at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale. Trade between Brazil and Florida increased to around $10.5 billion in
2004. Trade between the two entities slumped in 2002 and 2003 after a
record $10.51 billion in 2001. Gov.Geraldo Alckmin of the state of Sao Paulo and Brazil's Ambassador to
the United States Roberto Abdenur are to speak along with Florida
officials.Florida Gov.Jeb Bush is among those invited. Although the citrus decision was a disappointment, Brazil won another
fight Thursday -- a potentially more significant one -- when the World
Trade Organization ruled $2.7 billion in aid to U.S. cotton farmers is
illegal. The WTO rejected a U.S. appeal to overturn a ruling in 2004 by an
independent panel of trade experts. Brazil had complained that the United States was subsidizing its cotton
production in a bid to maintain its leadership position. Supporting the complaint were Argentina, Australia, Benin, Canada, Chad,
China, the European Union, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, Paraguay,
Taiwan and Venezuela. The panel ruled the subsidies were depressing international prices and
harming cotton farmers in Brazil and elsewhere. Brazil contended that the United States had paid $12.5 billion in
subsidies to U.S. farmers between August 2001 and July 2003. Representatives of the United States argued that the payments were well
within limits put in place by the WTO. The response by the United States has not been determined. In the past,
most nations decide to following the trade-organization rulings because
to defy them would risk retaliatory tariffs and could result in a loss
of markets. Total subsidies to farmers last year were $16 billion, and
cuts appear to be looming. President Bush's budget would cut farm subsidies by $587 million next
year with an eye toward reductions of $5 billion over the next decade. Brazil apparently feels as though it can use its economic power to
create even more power, especially when it involves the United States. In most of the first half of the last century, 50 percent of Brazil's
foreign trade was with the United States. Now it is down to 20 percent,
with the European Union getting more than one-fourth and South America
getting another 20 percent. Exports for the 12 months ending Jan. 31 narrowly broke the $100 billion
mark for the first time.With imports reaching $65.05 billion over the
same period, Brazil's trade surplus stood at about $35 billion.So far
this year, Brazil has accumulated a trade surplus of nearly $5 billion. Brazilian agriculture won another victory Thursday when the country's
lower house of legislature passed a bill to legalize the use of
genetically modified soy seeds.The U.S.-based biotechnology firm
Monsanto will be allowed to sell the seeds in Brazil.The seeds were
banned in Brazil but many farmers were believed to be using seeds that
had been cloned or smuggled into the country.
9. Loup County residents unfazed by 'poverty' ART HOVEY Lincoln (Neb.) Journal Star TAYLOR - Some people think all those new houses spilling across the gentle
slopes of southeast Lincoln prove they're settled in the right place. Others like the Loup County look. Jutting windmills and the Loup River winding through the cottonwoods. Barbed
wire, crooked fence posts and Herefords tearing at clumps of Sandhills
grass. Two hundred miles northwest of the capital city, you're never very far from
a hill where you can stuff your hands in your pockets, fix your gaze on the
distant horizon and ponder the bigger questions. Such as: How far is it to a hamburger? Do they shoot trespassers in such a remote
place? And what's the matter with Loup County? If anything. Those who keep up with their Great Plains reading will recognize the last
question as the one Thomas Frank tried to answer last year with the
publication of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" In a book subtitled "How Conservatives Won the Heart of America," the
self-proclaimed liberal returns to his roots and concludes, to his great
regret, that right-wing Republicans have a firm grip on the minds and hearts
of voters. So firm, in fact, that the faithful will choose family values over their own
economic self-interest in agriculture and other sectors of the economy at
the time of a presidential election. And firm for reasons that include the
frequent failure of Democrats to offer any better answers on pocketbook
issues. Sought out by the Journal Star and asked to train his troubled vision on a
Nebraska agricultural setting, Frank said this: "The problem facing people
is concentration, vertical integration, consolidation of the food industry.
And every farmer I've ever talked to knows what I'm talking about - and, by
and large, agrees with me." In looking toward Loup County, Frank is focusing on the poorest county in
the United States in 2003 rankings of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Loup dropped to second place in that dubious category last year, even as
George W. Bush pulled in 82 percent of votes cast in the county last year. Since 1997, Loup County has been first, second or third every year on a
poverty scale maintained for more than 3,000 counties in the United States,
said Jon Bailey of Nebraska's Center for Rural Affairs. Sue McNeil, who lives on a cattle ranch and near Loup County's one
incorporated town of Taylor, has helped local Republicans keep a lock on
their dominance in county politics. As county Republican chairwoman, she has
also learned to look past an annual kick in the shins from the Commerce
Department crowd. "Even foreign reporters have come here," she said. "And they say, 'You guys
aren't poor. You don't have homeless.'" The figures may be right, she said, as far as they go. "But maybe we don't
require as much to live here." John McFadden sits down to the fried-chicken lunch special in his stocking
feet at the Cattlemen's Company restaurant in Taylor, population 200. His manure-caked boots, left in ripe condition by the rigors of calving
season, stay outside as a courtesy to the mostly rural diners who have
occupied every available table by high noon. As he finishes his feast, McFadden accepts a copy of "What's the Matter with
Kansas?" and turns it over in his rough rancher's hands as he listens to a
quick summary of the contents. What does he think? Well, he said he thinks he and hired man Dan Hartman have about 75 pregnant
cows to sort into the categories of very expectant and not-so-expectant. As they and cattle dog Cinch tend to those and other afternoon chores, the
62-year-old McFadden said there might be something to at least some of what
author Frank says. He grins as he remembers what his father, Russell, also a rancher and a
Republican "hard-liner," once said about the lengths of Loup County's
political loyalties: '"If Adolf Hitler ran on the Republican ticket, we'd
probably all vote for him.'" "I think we're all staunch Republicans in this area," he adds, "and it
shows." The younger McFadden's enthusiasm for the elephant party has endured recent
word of downward adjustments in the Bush budget for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. That's the case even though the Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation says the
cuts could inflict "a huge blow" on Nebraska corn farmers. "It sounds like the big cuts will be with the big producers that get the big
payments," said McFadden, a prominent Farm Bureau member in his area. "I
think that, if they want to cut some money, that would be a good place to do
it." As an organization, the Farm Bureau is more fond of a Republican-led effort
that would permanently repeal the federal estate tax. Frank, who was in Norfolk recently to speak at the annual meeting of the
Center for Rural Affairs, doesn't think party loyalty has gone quite as
blind as McFadden's Adolf Hitler story implies. But he does think there are worrisome reasons Sandhills residents would vote
for a president who does not share their preference for mandatory
country-of-origin labeling of meat or a nationwide ban on meatpacker
ownership of cattle in feedlots. It was Senate Democrats, after all, who led the charge toward a packer ban
in 2001. Although the House never acted, 39 of 51 Senate votes for the
measure came from the Democratic side of the aisle, while 37 Republicans
voted no. How does that sort of issue fall out of voter thinking in cattle country? "There is a widespread feeling that there's nothing the average person can
do about the broad economic makeup of the world we live in," Frank said. Too often, he said, wrangling in Congress leads voters to believe "the
economy is something they have no say in." Bill Clinton, two-term Democratic president in the 1990s, is part of the
problem, Frank said. In looking for political middle ground, "he took a lot
economic issues off the table." "Democrats used to appeal to working-class people, farmers, average
Americans." John Kerry did nothing, in Frank's view, to rekindle old relationships. "Making decisions depends on the choices they have out there. And if
Democrats are not offering a clear choice, a solid distinction, then it is
not really going to matter. "And that's a huge part of the problem, especially in the last election,
when the Kerry people didn't try to appeal to people in places like
Nebraska." Suitably attired in cowboy hat and chaps, John Schroeder is about to climb
into the saddle and herd his cows into a new winter grazing area when he's
drawn into a discussion about conservatives being able to count on his
county, no matter which way the economy is headed. Yes, he voted for George W. Bush. And his father. And Ronald Reagan? Replies Schroeder: "He was a Republican, wasn't he?" That's not to say he agrees with everything a Republican president says. On
the subject of country-of-origin labeling, for example, he said he believes
people should know where their beef comes from. "You know where your cars come from. Why not your meat?" But Schroeder is quick to dispel the notion he has to hold his nose and
cover his eyes every November 4th. He appreciates what he sees as a more
cooperative attitude from the younger Bush in the areas where livestock and
environmental interests usually collide. Friendlier federal attitudes toward livestock waste policies and grazing
rights matter in cattle country. "Most of his environmental stuff I agree with. And I'm still not sure he's
all wrong on the war." Schroeder scoffs at the poverty rankings that keep putting Loup County in
the category of extreme need. He said he wonders how reliable employment
rates, for example, can be an economic indicator in such a lightly populated
place. "Somebody's hired man left and they didn't rehire him," he said. Sue McNeil is married to Loup County's only local Democrat official,
according to records on file at Democratic headquarters in Lincoln. But even County Commissioner Tom McNeil, one of 68 Loup County Kerry voters
swept aside by a Bush landslide of 314 in November, said he likes his family
values in large portions. "Without a doubt, I think family values have declined somewhat from what
they used to be," Tom McNeil said. "We're now living in a world where
there's more alcohol, drugs, teen pregnancies, all that sort of thing." Loup County has not succumbed to those sobering trends, to judge by the
lengthy statistical outpouring available through Nebraska's Health and Human
Services System. In 2000, only 7 percent of Loup County households were single-parent
families, compared to 12.4 percent for the rest of the state. Not a single student in grades 7 through 12 dropped out of school in
2000-2001. There were no reports of sexually transmitted diseases in 2001. The 1999 arrest rate for violent crime, DUI and other drug charges was 2.8
per 100,000, compared to 59.2 for the rest of the state. On the other hand, Loup County has no medical doctors, no psychiatrists and
no hospitals to serve the 712 people scattered across its 576 square miles
at the time of the 2000 census. Many rural youngsters ride the bus for an hour or more to get to school in
Taylor. Loup County's population peaked at 2,188 in 1910 and dropped steadily until
the census showed a gain of 29 people in the 1990s. Since 1910, the number of cows has jumped from about 11,000 to almost
40,000, but the Nebraska Agricultural Statistics Service reports the number
of farms and ranches is less than half the total at the end of World War II. Peg Schneider, owner-manager of Taylor Made Hair Designs and a Republican,
said she fits the mold of Middle America. "I think that Middle America
relates better to the Republican Party right now." "We are independent people and we don't want the government to do everything
for us. We want to try to take care of ourselves." She's proud to have a daughter in charge of pharmacy operations at the Wayne
hospital and a son in medical school in Omaha. What about this poverty stuff? "Monetarily, if that's where they say we were, that's a possibility," she
said. "But I think we don't have anybody going hungry and we have a really
good quality of life." Reach Art Hovey at (402) 523-4949
10. Rice exports from California are soaring amid a drought in Australia. But producers are seeing depressed prices because of a surplus of the grain. By Jerry Hirsch, LA Times, 03/15/05 The weak dollar and a serious drought in Australia are helping bring California's rice industry to a boil. The state's growers are shipping thousands of metric tons of Calrose rice to Israel, Jordan and New Guinea, countries that bought almost none of the grain last year. Canada has about doubled its purchases of the California grain and old-line customers such as Japan, Taiwan and South Korea are buying more. All told, exports and overseas orders for medium- and short-grain rice have risen 38% this year compared with 2004, to 785,000 metric tons, according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report released last week. And virtually all of the medium- and short-grain rice sold for export from the U.S. — the sticky kind of rice typically used in sushi — are grown in California. "In the last couple of months we have seen a big jump," said Andy Aaronson, a rice analyst at the USDA. "We are picking up business in areas where Australia is the usual supplier." Hampered by a persistent drought, Australian production has fallen to about a third of what's typical. Adding to the luster of California rice are favorable exchange rates, which make it more competitive globally. The state trails Arkansas as the nation's second-largest rice producer, growing $468 million worth in 2003, the last full year for which statistics are available, according to the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Still, though they might be selling more overseas, California farmers aren't getting much money. Prices are depressed this year — many farmers say rice sells for less than it costs to produce — because a surplus of the stuff was grown in 2004. That was a big turnaround from the previous season, when a small crop led to high prices. Farmers reacted predictably by planting wall-to-wall rice in Colusa and Glenn counties and other Northern California rice paddies. They sowed 600,000 acres of the grain in 2004, a 20% increase. At the same time, favorable weather led to record yields and pushed the state's output to 51 million hundred weights, a 31% gain. (Domestic rice production is measured in hundred weights, based on the now-defunct practice of storing the grain in 100-pound burlap sacks at harvest time.) "It's a huge amount," said Charlie Mathews, who farms 4,000 acres in Marysville, Calif. "The most we have ever exported and sold domestically before is maybe 43 million." Prices plunged to an estimated 7 to 8 cents a pound in the current 2004-2005 season from the approximately 12 cents paid out last year, farmers say. Prices are set through a combination of government supports and what the Farmers' Rice Cooperative and a group of private pools can get in the open market. The final returns for this year won't be in until after the July 31 end of the marketing season. Most of California's crop is sold through two types of organizations. The Sacramento-based rice cooperative, which accounts for about a quarter of the state's production, collects rice from its 900 members, then mills and packages the crop and finds customers such as breweries, food processors, retailers and overseas clients. It deducts the cost of its operations from the rice revenue and allocates what's left to its grower-owners. Private pools, which include global concerns such as ADM Rice Inc. and Connell Rice & Sugar Co., offer the same type of marketing services. They typically offer farmers some sort of minium guarantee, but the growers are essentially dependent on the pools to act as traders on their behalf and can't control what price they get. Some farmers are questioning why prices have fallen so far in the face of rising demand. Greg Massa of Hamilton City, Calif., is trying to sell about 3 million pounds of rice he harvested last year. Massa, who farms about 700 acres in Colusa and Glenn counties, thinks he can get more for his crop by hawking it on Farmandtrade.com, an Internet exchange, than he would from the cooperative or the marketing pools, which he claims have little incentive to push for higher prices.
Strong export activity, Massa said, should turn the market around and make his holdings more valuable. Moreover, Massa believes the USDA export figures are far too low. If trends hold, California could export 1.5 million metric tons, or 33 million hundred weights, a figure large enough to eat up much of the surplus crop, he estimates. "Australia has basically no rice left. China … will be a net importer. California will have a smaller crop due to the low prices and water sales to Los Angeles," Massa said. "Why would I sell now at a loss when I can make some money later?" His strategy is a gamble. If the market doesn't firm up, Massa will to have to sell out at prevailing prices or risk having so much grain left over that he finds himself competing with the upcoming crop, including the rice he'll plant in the coming months. California rice is planted in April and May and harvested in September and October. Massa, a member of a trade group called Rice Producers of California, said the marketing cooperative and private pools low-ball California rice just to move it. The group is calling on farmers to band together and demand higher prices. Others are skeptical of Massa's claim. "What's the incentive for the people who are buying California rice to leave money on the table when they sell it?" asked Daniel Sumner, director of the UC Davis Agriculture Issues Center. "All farmers think you can do a better job of marketing their crop. "But if the guys who are marketing rice were really screwing up and selling it for less than the market dictated, others would have jumped into the business." John Valpey, vice president for Connell Rice & Sugar in Colusa, said marketers "understand that growers would like a higher economic return." But he added that traders "cannot control the quantity of rice" that farmers produce. | |
