Twitter Link
Feed List
NVFBBLOG.ORG
An Ah-Ha Moment?
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
I don’t recall the first time I heard a public speaker share a fundamental truth, that made a whole bunch of stuff make better sense…but I think the results of this news blurb did something very much like that…
As someone who grew up on a farm and has been connected to production agriculture all my life, I understand how deeply the cultural mindset of farmers and ranchers run. “Producing food and fiber for a hungry and needy World” are not just words, intended as fluff, to make farming and ranching seem like a higher calling…those are fundamental beliefs, held deeply by individuals who are as “real” as any group of people walking the planet.
Determining their role is a responsibility that farmers and ranchers need to figure out for themselves, but doing so with the knowledge that the Center for Food Integrity survey offers should play a big part in approaches made to build the agriculture of the future. It also should be a consideration that warrants double-checking and further research.
I don’t recall the first time I heard a public speaker share a fundamental truth, that made a whole bunch of stuff make better sense…but I think the results of this news blurb did something very much like that…
"A new study indicates that a large segment of consumers do not believe U.S. farmers should be responsible for addressing global hunger. In its latest analysis of consumer trust in the food system, the Center for Food Integrity found that 40 percent of those surveyed strongly disagreed with the statement, “The United States has a responsibility to provide food for the rest of the world.”This insight (if completely accurate and relevant) is a game changer that will require a much different evaluation of what American agriculture is and how farmers and ranchers plan/determine their future approaches for doing business.
The study also shows that more than half the survey participants strongly agreed with the statement, “It is more important for the U.S. to teach developing nations how to feed themselves than to export food to them.” "
As someone who grew up on a farm and has been connected to production agriculture all my life, I understand how deeply the cultural mindset of farmers and ranchers run. “Producing food and fiber for a hungry and needy World” are not just words, intended as fluff, to make farming and ranching seem like a higher calling…those are fundamental beliefs, held deeply by individuals who are as “real” as any group of people walking the planet.
Determining their role is a responsibility that farmers and ranchers need to figure out for themselves, but doing so with the knowledge that the Center for Food Integrity survey offers should play a big part in approaches made to build the agriculture of the future. It also should be a consideration that warrants double-checking and further research.
Interesting Concept Of Not Doing Assigned Responsibilities
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
According to the position attributed to him in news accounts from the Elko Free Press, Bureau of Land Management Director Bob Abbey has indicated that if his agency is sued in an attempt to require the agency to manage Wild Horses at levels that meet the land’s carrying capacity for sustained use – the agency will simply increase the numbers of horses that they say fit on the land and get rid of other users to accomplish their purpose. This threat is intended to stave off efforts to require the BLM from doing their job, as directed by their land management mission and even the law dealing with Wild Horse management.
Through the use of strategies from the playbook of Cloward-Piven those who do not want to see Wild Horses managed have successfully maneuvered the land management agency into a position where they simply can’t manage the excessive horses on the land. Currently more Wild Horses reside in holding facilities than on the federally-managed lands and the care and feeding of these horses suck up financial resources to the extent that appropriate controls of the horses on the federal lands can’t be accomplished. Whenever incremental gathers are proposed and started, geared to bringing at least one small area of responsibility to appropriate management levels, so-called “horse advocates” sue and challenge the agency’s intention, delaying further the work that needs to be done.
The “solution” the agency is hoping to get away with using is not to do anything and seek input from the National Academy of Science, who are exploring something about the “science” which the BLM says they use in not managing the Wild Horses they are supposed to be managing. Perhaps it will also include an evaluation of the mathematics used to count how many animals are on the rangelands not being managed. Reports indicate that the other part of the new management process will be increased fertility-control methods to hopefully reduce the nearly rabbit-like capability of Wild Horse populations to reproduce.
Meanwhile, other land users (who once were included in the mix for the “multiple use” concept that BLM is supposedly responsible for accomplishing under the agency’s mission and legislative mandate) are warned to not take legal actions to require the agency to do their jobs, because they’ll solve their inability to manage at appropriate levels by increasing the numbers of allowable Wild Horses they aren’t going to manage at appropriate levels. This administration has also decided to solve the illegal immigrant problem the same way – by not following the laws when it gets in the way of meeting the requirements of following the law.
In the case of use of the federally-managed lands, those who use the lands for livestock grazing are held accountable by BLM when they fail to meet the obligations of standards for rangeland health. These same standards obviously don’t apply to the agency when it comes to them doing their jobs and managing the use (Wild Horses) that they have direct responsibility for. It’s going to be challenging to listen to the land management agency’s sermons about how much they care for the land, when their actions demonstrate the reality of where they stand.
According to the position attributed to him in news accounts from the Elko Free Press, Bureau of Land Management Director Bob Abbey has indicated that if his agency is sued in an attempt to require the agency to manage Wild Horses at levels that meet the land’s carrying capacity for sustained use – the agency will simply increase the numbers of horses that they say fit on the land and get rid of other users to accomplish their purpose. This threat is intended to stave off efforts to require the BLM from doing their job, as directed by their land management mission and even the law dealing with Wild Horse management.
Through the use of strategies from the playbook of Cloward-Piven those who do not want to see Wild Horses managed have successfully maneuvered the land management agency into a position where they simply can’t manage the excessive horses on the land. Currently more Wild Horses reside in holding facilities than on the federally-managed lands and the care and feeding of these horses suck up financial resources to the extent that appropriate controls of the horses on the federal lands can’t be accomplished. Whenever incremental gathers are proposed and started, geared to bringing at least one small area of responsibility to appropriate management levels, so-called “horse advocates” sue and challenge the agency’s intention, delaying further the work that needs to be done.
The “solution” the agency is hoping to get away with using is not to do anything and seek input from the National Academy of Science, who are exploring something about the “science” which the BLM says they use in not managing the Wild Horses they are supposed to be managing. Perhaps it will also include an evaluation of the mathematics used to count how many animals are on the rangelands not being managed. Reports indicate that the other part of the new management process will be increased fertility-control methods to hopefully reduce the nearly rabbit-like capability of Wild Horse populations to reproduce.
Meanwhile, other land users (who once were included in the mix for the “multiple use” concept that BLM is supposedly responsible for accomplishing under the agency’s mission and legislative mandate) are warned to not take legal actions to require the agency to do their jobs, because they’ll solve their inability to manage at appropriate levels by increasing the numbers of allowable Wild Horses they aren’t going to manage at appropriate levels. This administration has also decided to solve the illegal immigrant problem the same way – by not following the laws when it gets in the way of meeting the requirements of following the law.
In the case of use of the federally-managed lands, those who use the lands for livestock grazing are held accountable by BLM when they fail to meet the obligations of standards for rangeland health. These same standards obviously don’t apply to the agency when it comes to them doing their jobs and managing the use (Wild Horses) that they have direct responsibility for. It’s going to be challenging to listen to the land management agency’s sermons about how much they care for the land, when their actions demonstrate the reality of where they stand.
Will Rural Initiative Result In Additions To “The List”?
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
We recently wrote a piece on the White House Rural Council, seeking to put in context thoughts that instead of being a “one-world order conspiracy” it was more than likely an election platform that President Obama would attempt to use to boost his standing with rural America. That perspective seems to be gaining traction, given the Council’s first public documentation, primarily geared to suggest that the Obama Administration, using federal funds has and will continue to provide the necessary dollars for the economic prosperity that will certainly sweep across the countryside in unbelievable waves.
We’re told in this news blurb that the President is putting in motion his administration’s latest game-plan of rural economic enhancement (and continuing his campaign to convince voters that he should be re-elected…since he’s doing things so well) at the White House Rural Economic Forum today in Peosta, Iowa. As part of his announcement of the new jobs initiatives recommended by the White House Rural Council for growing the economy and creating jobs in rural America the President’s news release attributes the President as saying…
In the pursuit of redistributing resources from the private sector (acquired through taxes) and then spent on these projects and programs, it will be interesting to see if we will, at some day in the future, see examples of grandiose rural prosperity government projects find their way to this list of government spending boondoggles.
Although it’s not the stuff that politicians can take credit for, one has to wonder what could happen if government didn’t first have to over-tax the private sector that produces our economy in order to finance projects and activities that, while politically-correct, don’t have the ability to be economically feasible without the government funding that politicians are wanting to get credit for having financed. Supposedly, we’re to bow and be appreciative of all the bounty that government spending will accomplish to make our lives better. In the long-run we’d be better if we just got to keep more of what we earned and not have to send it off to government so they can give it back to us for things that would be better initiated from the ground up (instead of the top down).
We recently wrote a piece on the White House Rural Council, seeking to put in context thoughts that instead of being a “one-world order conspiracy” it was more than likely an election platform that President Obama would attempt to use to boost his standing with rural America. That perspective seems to be gaining traction, given the Council’s first public documentation, primarily geared to suggest that the Obama Administration, using federal funds has and will continue to provide the necessary dollars for the economic prosperity that will certainly sweep across the countryside in unbelievable waves.
We’re told in this news blurb that the President is putting in motion his administration’s latest game-plan of rural economic enhancement (and continuing his campaign to convince voters that he should be re-elected…since he’s doing things so well) at the White House Rural Economic Forum today in Peosta, Iowa. As part of his announcement of the new jobs initiatives recommended by the White House Rural Council for growing the economy and creating jobs in rural America the President’s news release attributes the President as saying…
“These are tough times for a lot of Americans—including those who live in our rural communities. That’s why my administration has put a special focus on helping rural families find jobs, grow their businesses and regain a sense of economic security.”The council’s recommendations, which leverage existing programs and funding, include committing $350 million in Small Business Administration funding to rural small businesses over the next five years, launching a series of conferences to connect private equity and venture capital investors with rural startups; creating capital marketing teams to pitch federal funding opportunities to private investors interested in making rural investments; making job search information available at 2,800 local USDA offices nationwide; making Health and Human Services loans available to help more than 1,300 Critical Access Hospitals recruit additional staff; and helping rural hospitals purchase software and hardware to implement health information technology.
In the pursuit of redistributing resources from the private sector (acquired through taxes) and then spent on these projects and programs, it will be interesting to see if we will, at some day in the future, see examples of grandiose rural prosperity government projects find their way to this list of government spending boondoggles.
Although it’s not the stuff that politicians can take credit for, one has to wonder what could happen if government didn’t first have to over-tax the private sector that produces our economy in order to finance projects and activities that, while politically-correct, don’t have the ability to be economically feasible without the government funding that politicians are wanting to get credit for having financed. Supposedly, we’re to bow and be appreciative of all the bounty that government spending will accomplish to make our lives better. In the long-run we’d be better if we just got to keep more of what we earned and not have to send it off to government so they can give it back to us for things that would be better initiated from the ground up (instead of the top down).
Thank You Very Much For Reasonable Decision
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
As someone who would have offered some very visceral observations on the state of things, should the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration made a decision to impose commercial license requirements for farm equipment, I want to just as emphatically applaud the decision (made very quickly) to not go forward with the imposition of such controls. Through their August 10 news release, the agency announced that they weren’t going to bring farm equipment under their regulatory control.
By way of a more detailed explanation of the decision, William Bronrett, Deputy Administrator, clarified the agency’s point of view, as well as clearly articulating that they got the message from the input which was provided.
Earlier this week I had written of the concerns, following the August 1st, close of public input comments and shared the input that had been provided by both the American Farm Bureau Federation and Nevada Farm Bureau Federation. A day before the release of the announcement from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, I had been interviewed by the Nevada News Bureau, who restructured their news story to include the newly announced decision.
All in all, the decision to not regulate in this case is extremely welcomed – as is the prompt response made by the agency in coming to the conclusion they did. It’s worthy to note that the strong turn-out of input and consistency of opposition was also positive.
Thank you to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for the decision you’ve arrived at making.
As someone who would have offered some very visceral observations on the state of things, should the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration made a decision to impose commercial license requirements for farm equipment, I want to just as emphatically applaud the decision (made very quickly) to not go forward with the imposition of such controls. Through their August 10 news release, the agency announced that they weren’t going to bring farm equipment under their regulatory control.
By way of a more detailed explanation of the decision, William Bronrett, Deputy Administrator, clarified the agency’s point of view, as well as clearly articulating that they got the message from the input which was provided.
Earlier this week I had written of the concerns, following the August 1st, close of public input comments and shared the input that had been provided by both the American Farm Bureau Federation and Nevada Farm Bureau Federation. A day before the release of the announcement from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, I had been interviewed by the Nevada News Bureau, who restructured their news story to include the newly announced decision.
All in all, the decision to not regulate in this case is extremely welcomed – as is the prompt response made by the agency in coming to the conclusion they did. It’s worthy to note that the strong turn-out of input and consistency of opposition was also positive.
Thank you to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for the decision you’ve arrived at making.
Regulations In Search Of A Problem
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
One of the marks of the Obama administration is the intention to bring about greater command and control oversight, inventing their authority to exercise the power they wish to initiate. Having not always accomplished the objectives that they’ve desired in legislative ways and actually having been pushed back in the court system (by such notable authorities as the U.S. Supreme Court), government agencies are simply pressing forward through their own designs and systems. A current theme appears to be the construction of “guidance documents” which are leveraged to impose regulatory controls.
We’ve seen this end-run tactic in play with the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corp of Engineers in their quest to undo the Supreme Court ruling on whether they can bring every drop of water under their controlling boots.
There has even been a spin-off of this “guidance” strategy launched by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, who also have been dreaming about ways in which to take federal control over farm equipment moving up and down roads. In their one-size fits all mindset and under the guise of “better safety” (who can argue against wanting Big Brother’s “protection”), the agency sought input on gaining oversight on farm equipment.
Review of their request for input demonstrates the lengths federal agencies will go to in order to stretch and apply imagination to find ways of making farm equipment that nearly always travel on intra-state roads fit their inter-state authority. Farm tractors should be treated the same way as over-the-road semi-trucks…Commercial Drivers Licenses (CDL) ought to be required for everyone climbing aboard an old John Deere…and if you are involved with a rental agreement which is based on share-cropping, you better be considered in the mix as well.
This comment letter, submitted by the American Farm Bureau Federation, does an outstanding job of giving the would-be regulators a clear understanding on how they are not relating to what happens in the real world and where their invention of having authority falls short.
Not being quite as obliged to worry about whether their feathers got ruffled over a more straight-forward approach, Nevada Farm Bureau’s comments took a few less pages.
The issue even drew attention from a significant voice in agricultural policy matters, U.S. Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, who co-wrote with 22 other U.S. Senators a letter of concern on what the agency was planning to do…
One of the marks of the Obama administration is the intention to bring about greater command and control oversight, inventing their authority to exercise the power they wish to initiate. Having not always accomplished the objectives that they’ve desired in legislative ways and actually having been pushed back in the court system (by such notable authorities as the U.S. Supreme Court), government agencies are simply pressing forward through their own designs and systems. A current theme appears to be the construction of “guidance documents” which are leveraged to impose regulatory controls.
We’ve seen this end-run tactic in play with the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corp of Engineers in their quest to undo the Supreme Court ruling on whether they can bring every drop of water under their controlling boots.
There has even been a spin-off of this “guidance” strategy launched by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, who also have been dreaming about ways in which to take federal control over farm equipment moving up and down roads. In their one-size fits all mindset and under the guise of “better safety” (who can argue against wanting Big Brother’s “protection”), the agency sought input on gaining oversight on farm equipment.
Review of their request for input demonstrates the lengths federal agencies will go to in order to stretch and apply imagination to find ways of making farm equipment that nearly always travel on intra-state roads fit their inter-state authority. Farm tractors should be treated the same way as over-the-road semi-trucks…Commercial Drivers Licenses (CDL) ought to be required for everyone climbing aboard an old John Deere…and if you are involved with a rental agreement which is based on share-cropping, you better be considered in the mix as well.
This comment letter, submitted by the American Farm Bureau Federation, does an outstanding job of giving the would-be regulators a clear understanding on how they are not relating to what happens in the real world and where their invention of having authority falls short.
Not being quite as obliged to worry about whether their feathers got ruffled over a more straight-forward approach, Nevada Farm Bureau’s comments took a few less pages.
The issue even drew attention from a significant voice in agricultural policy matters, U.S. Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, who co-wrote with 22 other U.S. Senators a letter of concern on what the agency was planning to do…
“The FMCSA proposed rule changes would provide no proven benefit, and would only serve to excessively and unnecessarily overburden our agriculture producers who are already overstrained by government regulations,” said Senator Roberts. “Farming can be dangerous, and we want to make sure these proposed rules will keep our producers safe while they’re doing their jobs.”We’re now down to the waiting to see how the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration moves forward, wondering if the comments will have any influence – or if they simply plan to advance with their pursuit of heavy-handed government edicts.
Moving Forward On Trade Agreements Side Tracked By Debt Ceiling Falderal
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
While the debt ceiling limit drama plays itself out and our elected representatives find a way to authorize our country to go deeper into debt, one area of prospective good economic progress has been put on hold. We recently received this update from those working in Washington, D.C. to encourage passage of three pending trade agreements, requiring attention by lawmakers to go forward…
The track record of past trade agreements, as detailed in this piece by Daniel Griswold, should further reinforce the importance of Congressional action to get these arrangements finalized.
Our only real path out of the malaise of our current doldrums is growing private sector jobs through actual economic ventures like the business opportunities offered in these trade agreements. Government can’t spend us out of the mess we’re in, but they can take the necessary steps to authorize win-win trade agreements and then stay out of the way.
It would also help if they could figure out a way to keep from spending more than they are taking from the private sector, who are trying to earn enough to make a living and support government’s over-spending addictions.
While the debt ceiling limit drama plays itself out and our elected representatives find a way to authorize our country to go deeper into debt, one area of prospective good economic progress has been put on hold. We recently received this update from those working in Washington, D.C. to encourage passage of three pending trade agreements, requiring attention by lawmakers to go forward…
”The three pending trade agreements with Korea, Colombia and Panama will not be introduced until Congress returns from the August District Work Period. Action on the trade agreements has been complicated by the issue of whether to include Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) as part of the package and the ongoing negotiations over the debt ceiling and deficit reduction. The Administration has stated they will send the implementing bills and TAA to Congress in September. In addition, twelve key Senate Republicans have sent a letter to the Administration saying they would support TAA as a stand-alone bill on the Senate floor. This announcement is critical to keeping the trade agreements moving forward, given that the main opposition to the process of TAA and the implementing bills is Senate Republicans.”The American Farm Bureau Federation and others interested in the long-term strength of our country’s agriculture have been pushing hard to gain favorable actions by Congress to move forward with adoption and implementation of the trade agreements that are hung up with the problems outlined above. As we can see from this background information, there are very solid reasons to get the deals cinched with Korea, Columbia and Panama.
The track record of past trade agreements, as detailed in this piece by Daniel Griswold, should further reinforce the importance of Congressional action to get these arrangements finalized.
Our only real path out of the malaise of our current doldrums is growing private sector jobs through actual economic ventures like the business opportunities offered in these trade agreements. Government can’t spend us out of the mess we’re in, but they can take the necessary steps to authorize win-win trade agreements and then stay out of the way.
It would also help if they could figure out a way to keep from spending more than they are taking from the private sector, who are trying to earn enough to make a living and support government’s over-spending addictions.
Moving Forward On Trade Agreements Side Tracked By Debt Ceiling Falderal
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
While the debt ceiling limit drama plays itself out and our elected representatives find a way to authorize our country to go deeper into debt, one area of prospective good economic progress has been put on hold. We recently received this update from those working in Washington, D.C. to encourage passage of three pending trade agreements, requiring attention by lawmakers to go forward…
The track record of past trade agreements, as detailed in this piece by Daniel Griswold, should further reinforce the importance of Congressional action to get these arrangements finalized.
Our only real path out of the malaise of our current doldrums is growing private sector jobs through actual economic ventures like the business opportunities offered in these trade agreements. Government can’t spend us out of the mess we’re in, but they can take the necessary steps to authorize win-win trade agreements and then stay out of the way.
It would also help if they could figure out a way to keep from spending more than they are taking from the private sector, who are trying to earn enough to make a living and support government’s over-spending addictions.
While the debt ceiling limit drama plays itself out and our elected representatives find a way to authorize our country to go deeper into debt, one area of prospective good economic progress has been put on hold. We recently received this update from those working in Washington, D.C. to encourage passage of three pending trade agreements, requiring attention by lawmakers to go forward…
”The three pending trade agreements with Korea, Colombia and Panama will not be introduced until Congress returns from the August District Work Period. Action on the trade agreements has been complicated by the issue of whether to include Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) as part of the package and the ongoing negotiations over the debt ceiling and deficit reduction. The Administration has stated they will send the implementing bills and TAA to Congress in September. In addition, twelve key Senate Republicans have sent a letter to the Administration saying they would support TAA as a stand-alone bill on the Senate floor. This announcement is critical to keeping the trade agreements moving forward, given that the main opposition to the process of TAA and the implementing bills is Senate Republicans.”The American Farm Bureau Federation and others interested in the long-term strength of our country’s agriculture have been pushing hard to gain favorable actions by Congress to move forward with adoption and implementation of the trade agreements that are hung up with the problems outlined above. As we can see from this background information, there are very solid reasons to get the deals cinched with Korea, Columbia and Panama.
The track record of past trade agreements, as detailed in this piece by Daniel Griswold, should further reinforce the importance of Congressional action to get these arrangements finalized.
Our only real path out of the malaise of our current doldrums is growing private sector jobs through actual economic ventures like the business opportunities offered in these trade agreements. Government can’t spend us out of the mess we’re in, but they can take the necessary steps to authorize win-win trade agreements and then stay out of the way.
It would also help if they could figure out a way to keep from spending more than they are taking from the private sector, who are trying to earn enough to make a living and support government’s over-spending addictions.
Laying The Groundwork For Agricultural Research Funding
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
In spite of the concentration now being focused on the debt ceiling limit issue and getting a handle on government expenditures, other – more normal – legislative pursuits are continuing within Congress. Lawmakers from agricultural states (mostly Midwestern and Southern) and involved as members of the House Agriculture or Senate Agriculture committees are pulling their ideas and materials together for the regularly scheduled deliberations over a new farm bill. One section of the Farm Bill deals with the subject area of agricultural research and is a major driver in directing/moving agricultural research.
Although agricultural research is considered by those connected with agriculture as a critical component in making the future of American agriculture all it needs to be, there isn’t as wide-spread of support as those involved would like to see be available. Without the financial backing that is made available through the research funding elements of the Farm Bill, actual agricultural research and development isn’t pursued with the necessary emphasis to advance productivity with the same rate of improvement as has been the case in the past.
Against this backdrop we’re seeing a variety of thought-pieces being put together to promote the necessity of putting extra bucks into the research section of the next Farm Bill, pretty much on the policy drawing board right now. A friend who is inclined to believe very strongly in the importance of agricultural research shared a couple of the policy documents that are circulating to stir up the support sought for more than a status quo approach to putting money into the plans.
Having followed some of the policy notions coming from the American Enterprise Institute, I was somewhat surprised to read their paper, “For Want of a Nail”. In other agricultural policy ideas that they have put out, it seemed that they weren’t inclined to be as pro-funding as they come across in this policy paper.
My friend also included in his link-sharing this background document from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service, highlighting the needs for putting more financial fuel into the engine of agricultural research.
As a product of a traditional, main-stream, agricultural upbringing, the importance of agricultural research and the benefits that come from such pursuits is a given in my mind.
Part of the frustration over the approaches (or lack thereof) in Nevada’s agricultural research endeavors stems from knowing the importance, but not believing that our Land Grant University has any interests/ability to deliver, in the area of applied agricultural research. Because the policy papers take as a given that there is an infrastructure for agricultural research, that simply needs dollars, the situation that Nevada faces is not covered (at least from this writer’s point of view).
If you don’t have the researchers who are in place to carry out the applied research, it doesn’t matter whether there is sufficient funding to promote delving into questions of how to boost agricultural productivity and growth.
When Nevada’s Land Grant University and connected agricultural research operations made the determination that basic research was a more favorable direction to go in pursuit of funding (and the applied research manpower was deleted from the system) the fate of what we now have was established. Rebuilding that research capacity is extremely challenging in light of financial constraints that struggle simply to keep in place -- a place to do the research.
As the more agriculturally-inclined areas of the country scramble to build their case for increased funding, the Silver State’s ag. advocates have their hands full just getting those in charge to believe applied research needs to have the where-with-all for an opportunity to be carried out.
In spite of the concentration now being focused on the debt ceiling limit issue and getting a handle on government expenditures, other – more normal – legislative pursuits are continuing within Congress. Lawmakers from agricultural states (mostly Midwestern and Southern) and involved as members of the House Agriculture or Senate Agriculture committees are pulling their ideas and materials together for the regularly scheduled deliberations over a new farm bill. One section of the Farm Bill deals with the subject area of agricultural research and is a major driver in directing/moving agricultural research.
Although agricultural research is considered by those connected with agriculture as a critical component in making the future of American agriculture all it needs to be, there isn’t as wide-spread of support as those involved would like to see be available. Without the financial backing that is made available through the research funding elements of the Farm Bill, actual agricultural research and development isn’t pursued with the necessary emphasis to advance productivity with the same rate of improvement as has been the case in the past.
Against this backdrop we’re seeing a variety of thought-pieces being put together to promote the necessity of putting extra bucks into the research section of the next Farm Bill, pretty much on the policy drawing board right now. A friend who is inclined to believe very strongly in the importance of agricultural research shared a couple of the policy documents that are circulating to stir up the support sought for more than a status quo approach to putting money into the plans.
Having followed some of the policy notions coming from the American Enterprise Institute, I was somewhat surprised to read their paper, “For Want of a Nail”. In other agricultural policy ideas that they have put out, it seemed that they weren’t inclined to be as pro-funding as they come across in this policy paper.
My friend also included in his link-sharing this background document from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service, highlighting the needs for putting more financial fuel into the engine of agricultural research.
As a product of a traditional, main-stream, agricultural upbringing, the importance of agricultural research and the benefits that come from such pursuits is a given in my mind.
Part of the frustration over the approaches (or lack thereof) in Nevada’s agricultural research endeavors stems from knowing the importance, but not believing that our Land Grant University has any interests/ability to deliver, in the area of applied agricultural research. Because the policy papers take as a given that there is an infrastructure for agricultural research, that simply needs dollars, the situation that Nevada faces is not covered (at least from this writer’s point of view).
If you don’t have the researchers who are in place to carry out the applied research, it doesn’t matter whether there is sufficient funding to promote delving into questions of how to boost agricultural productivity and growth.
When Nevada’s Land Grant University and connected agricultural research operations made the determination that basic research was a more favorable direction to go in pursuit of funding (and the applied research manpower was deleted from the system) the fate of what we now have was established. Rebuilding that research capacity is extremely challenging in light of financial constraints that struggle simply to keep in place -- a place to do the research.
As the more agriculturally-inclined areas of the country scramble to build their case for increased funding, the Silver State’s ag. advocates have their hands full just getting those in charge to believe applied research needs to have the where-with-all for an opportunity to be carried out.
Senator Reid’s Plan To Deal With Debt Limit Ceiling
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
With the effort in Washington, D.C. to come up with a legislated solution to the problem of Uncle Sam having his credit card maxed out and needing an additional cushion of deeper debt to pay the 40-cents (which needs to be borrowed) of every dollar that government spends – agricultural spending is being included in the mix of things that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is proposing. This is not to say that agricultural spending shouldn’t be included in the overall reduction of unsustainable government spending…probably, the $10-15 Billion, spread out over a ten year span wouldn’t have a serious effect. Although it isn’t real clear on the exact actual reductions of the Reid plan and how much the whole thing isn’t simply an illusion of smoke and mirrors to get the extension needed for the debt ceiling moved past the 2012 elections that Democrats are pushing as essential.
Whether the two versions of spending reductions/increased debt ceiling amount to more than what the past differing proposals have been is uncertain, as we read in this Washington Post article. So it doesn’t pay to get too excited over what might come about with reductions in any area.
As is common with most proposals in Washington, D.C. deliberations, the real world consequences of any changes are so far beyond comprehension that most don’t believe the political rhetoric one way or the other. Besides that, what gets “cut” today doesn’t mean that those elected to be our representatives won’t reverse themselves tomorrow. That’s probably the reason that the majority party of the U.S. Senate all voted against the cut, cap and balance legislation that was sent to them by the U.S. House…how dare anyone restrict the ability to be fiscally irresponsible and spend more than what taxpayers have already forked over!
In better understanding the real issues of the debt ceiling issue, this article (also from the Washington Post) offers a good overview of the actual situation.
What will unfold over the next couple of weeks will likely be a lot more of what we’ve already been treated to this summer…finger pointing, breathless indignation at the other political party’s unreasonable unwillingness to compromise…yahta, yahta, yahta. When they actually pass a bill, through both legislative bodies that does something…we’ll see what the details they’ve agreed to then.
With the effort in Washington, D.C. to come up with a legislated solution to the problem of Uncle Sam having his credit card maxed out and needing an additional cushion of deeper debt to pay the 40-cents (which needs to be borrowed) of every dollar that government spends – agricultural spending is being included in the mix of things that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is proposing. This is not to say that agricultural spending shouldn’t be included in the overall reduction of unsustainable government spending…probably, the $10-15 Billion, spread out over a ten year span wouldn’t have a serious effect. Although it isn’t real clear on the exact actual reductions of the Reid plan and how much the whole thing isn’t simply an illusion of smoke and mirrors to get the extension needed for the debt ceiling moved past the 2012 elections that Democrats are pushing as essential.
Whether the two versions of spending reductions/increased debt ceiling amount to more than what the past differing proposals have been is uncertain, as we read in this Washington Post article. So it doesn’t pay to get too excited over what might come about with reductions in any area.
As is common with most proposals in Washington, D.C. deliberations, the real world consequences of any changes are so far beyond comprehension that most don’t believe the political rhetoric one way or the other. Besides that, what gets “cut” today doesn’t mean that those elected to be our representatives won’t reverse themselves tomorrow. That’s probably the reason that the majority party of the U.S. Senate all voted against the cut, cap and balance legislation that was sent to them by the U.S. House…how dare anyone restrict the ability to be fiscally irresponsible and spend more than what taxpayers have already forked over!
In better understanding the real issues of the debt ceiling issue, this article (also from the Washington Post) offers a good overview of the actual situation.
What will unfold over the next couple of weeks will likely be a lot more of what we’ve already been treated to this summer…finger pointing, breathless indignation at the other political party’s unreasonable unwillingness to compromise…yahta, yahta, yahta. When they actually pass a bill, through both legislative bodies that does something…we’ll see what the details they’ve agreed to then.
Alternative Energy – Great Beat, But Will We Ever Dance To It
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
For those of the era of American Bandstand you will recall the rate a new record portion of the program where the song would play and young people would give their opinion, often sharing the observation that a song would have a great beat…but you couldn’t really dance to it. Does the same apply to Nevada’s future being in alternative energy development?
Jon Ralston’s recent column in the Las Vegas Sun drew attention to the hyperbole over how Nevada’s future is linked with green energy, but the actions of agencies like the Nevada Public Utilities Commission cause us to wonder whether getting there will ever be accomplished. His points were well made, both from the standpoint of how overblown the hype is over Nevada’s future prosperity in the alternative energy field…and the reality of the mad rush to implement a higher-priced energy system.
Some would have you believe that since the sun shines for free or the wind blows without costs – alternative energy is free for the taking. Actually, both of these sources for electrical energy aren’t in the ballpark when it comes to costs comparisons to the way we get power now (natural gas, coal, etc.) There’s also the matter of getting the power from where it is harnessed to the light switch that pays the bill when it is flipped.
One of Nevada’s more costs-effective energy sources, geothermal, does compete in the price comparison, but still requires the electrical power lines to connect to the grid. It is also limited to requiring the power generation site to be where the natural hot water sources are located.
In some respects wind power is also restricted to wind-prone areas (not just frequently windy, but actually the type of steady wind that makes electrical power generation more efficient than it is in a once-in-a-while quality wind).
These limitations for locating generation facilities come with their own challenges – not widely discussed when it comes to the promises of how alternative energy will result in economic boons for Nevada. Due to Nevada’s 80-plus percent federal lands make-up, doing what it takes to develop energy sites involves fairly complicated approvals. Those approvals aren’t easy to get in the first place and the desires to protect Sage Grouse from becoming a higher listed species on the Endangered Species Act list is making it even more unlikely that the lights will be going green for progress.
Behind the scenes activities are raising the bar to make it more difficult to get federal agencies to sign off on approval for not only the generation facilities, but also the power lines that carry the electricity to markets. Power lines are also deemed problematic for Sage Grouse survival, primarily because of the way they provide a platform for damaging predatory birds like Ravens.
As we continue to hear about the promise of how green energy is going to serve as a foundation for Nevada’s job market and become a significant engine for our economy, it would be worth having some honest dialogue on what it’s actually going to take to deliver on the promise and what the consequences will be (higher still energy prices) if we ever get where we’re supposed to be drooling over getting to.
For those of the era of American Bandstand you will recall the rate a new record portion of the program where the song would play and young people would give their opinion, often sharing the observation that a song would have a great beat…but you couldn’t really dance to it. Does the same apply to Nevada’s future being in alternative energy development?
Jon Ralston’s recent column in the Las Vegas Sun drew attention to the hyperbole over how Nevada’s future is linked with green energy, but the actions of agencies like the Nevada Public Utilities Commission cause us to wonder whether getting there will ever be accomplished. His points were well made, both from the standpoint of how overblown the hype is over Nevada’s future prosperity in the alternative energy field…and the reality of the mad rush to implement a higher-priced energy system.
Some would have you believe that since the sun shines for free or the wind blows without costs – alternative energy is free for the taking. Actually, both of these sources for electrical energy aren’t in the ballpark when it comes to costs comparisons to the way we get power now (natural gas, coal, etc.) There’s also the matter of getting the power from where it is harnessed to the light switch that pays the bill when it is flipped.
One of Nevada’s more costs-effective energy sources, geothermal, does compete in the price comparison, but still requires the electrical power lines to connect to the grid. It is also limited to requiring the power generation site to be where the natural hot water sources are located.
In some respects wind power is also restricted to wind-prone areas (not just frequently windy, but actually the type of steady wind that makes electrical power generation more efficient than it is in a once-in-a-while quality wind).
These limitations for locating generation facilities come with their own challenges – not widely discussed when it comes to the promises of how alternative energy will result in economic boons for Nevada. Due to Nevada’s 80-plus percent federal lands make-up, doing what it takes to develop energy sites involves fairly complicated approvals. Those approvals aren’t easy to get in the first place and the desires to protect Sage Grouse from becoming a higher listed species on the Endangered Species Act list is making it even more unlikely that the lights will be going green for progress.
Behind the scenes activities are raising the bar to make it more difficult to get federal agencies to sign off on approval for not only the generation facilities, but also the power lines that carry the electricity to markets. Power lines are also deemed problematic for Sage Grouse survival, primarily because of the way they provide a platform for damaging predatory birds like Ravens.
As we continue to hear about the promise of how green energy is going to serve as a foundation for Nevada’s job market and become a significant engine for our economy, it would be worth having some honest dialogue on what it’s actually going to take to deliver on the promise and what the consequences will be (higher still energy prices) if we ever get where we’re supposed to be drooling over getting to.